Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Cancelled Operations

Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum and minimum number of operating theatre sessions cancelled by district health authorities last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Four districts reported no cancelled scheduled operating theatre sessions in 1988–89 and one reported just over 2,000 cancelled sessions.

Mr. Maples: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Does he agree that the figures that he has just given show yet again that there are enormous discrepancies in the performances of different health authorities? Does he further agree that if only the less efficient could improve their performance, they could deliver far more health care for the same amount of money?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes. He made a good point. Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have pointed out the enormous discrepancy within health districts in the efficient use of operating theatres. The Bevan report shows that across the country the average utilisation is 70 per cent. If that were raised to 90 per cent., there would be a saving to the National Health Service of £100 million. The reforms that we intend to introduce next April will help to achieve that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: What steps are being taken to increase the average utilisation figure? Would improved information technology help, especially when patients do not turn up or when notes are not available to the surgeon carrying out the operation?

Mr. Dorrell: Improved technology certainly has a part to play and our response to the Bevan report recognises that. We are currently consulting on the lessons to be learnt from that report and we expect to issue guidance soon.

Dame Jill Knight: Was not there a recent case of an ophthalmic surgeon working in the Health Service carrying out more operations in one month than another ophthalmic surgeon carried out in six months? Do not

NHS patients have the right to expect unanimity of good service, wherever they may live? Is not that the most important reason for the review of the NHS?

Mr. Dorrell: During my three and a half weeks in the job, that specific case has not been drawn to my attention. However, the principle espoused by my hon. Friend is right. We are introducing reforms next April to try to achieve that unanimity of service throughout the country.

Community Care

Mr. Bell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on earmarked grants to local authorities for the purpose of community care.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on earmarked grants to local authorities for the purpose of community care.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Local authorities are responsible for determining the use of the resources on matters for which they have policy responsibility and for which they are accountable. The House welcomed the Government's decision to make community care the prime responsibility of local government, and earmarked grants would be inconsistent with that decision.

Mr. Bell: I am sorry to hear the Secretary of State's response, although I am not surprised by it. Is he aware of the anxiety throughout social services departments that there will not be sufficient grant to meet the demand for community care? Is he further aware of the London Research Centre report, published in April, which suggested that there would be a shortfall of £100 million rising to £500 million by 1994? Will he consider specific grants to meet such shortfalls, should they arise?

Mr. Clarke: We have always made it clear that local authorities need, and will receive, adequate resources to carry out their new responsibilities. Those resources will be decided during the public expenditure round. It is rather premature to produce reports, from any source, about the inadequacy of resources before we have even decided what those resources will be.
One difficulty with earmarked grants is that it is impossible to separate that area of expenditure from what is already being spent on care in the community, which in large part is already a local authority responsibility. remind the hon. Gentleman that while the Government have been in power total spending on care in the community has risen by 68 per cent. in real terms—that is more than half as much again as was being spent when we took office and before we introduced our popular arrangements.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On 6 December the former junior Minister made a speech of glowing support for community care when he addressed the annual general meeting of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Is not it a cruel deception of such bodies that there is a distinction between the Government's aims and the methods that they use? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that earmarked grants should be available to areas such as north Derbyshire so that they can meet the provisions referred to in Government statements?

Mr. Clarke: My junior Ministers move on to greater things so rapidly that I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office or my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, but if he was addressing the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I have no doubt that the reference was, above all, to the specific grant that we have made it clear that we shall be introducing to encourage community care for mentally ill people. A specific grant for that area is important because in the past it has not been given high enough priority by local authorities. Therefore, money aimed specifically at mental illness will be allocated to local authorities when they produce plans that are satisfactory to the health authorities.

Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comfirm that, whether earmarked or not, grants given to local authorities from next April will represent the sums that hitherto would have been paid in social security benefits? Is he yet able to give the formula by which the figures will be calculated or an estimate of the sum involved? I am sure that he appreciates the difficulties of local authorities in making their plans from next April without knowing what resources will be available to them.

Mr. Clarke: We are firmly committed to transferring from the Department of Social Security vote to our vote and to local government the sum of money that would have been spent by the Department of Social Security under the old policy of making provision through income support for people in residential care. We also have to make a calculation for growth and a calculation of what is available for this year, and we shall do that when we make the decision on the revenue support grant for local government. I appreciate the difficulties for local government in having to make plans when final decisions have not been reached on exactly how much will be available next year, but that is inescapable in the system of annual financial planning that we have always had. It is true of the whole range of government, under this Government or any other, that we have to wait for the autumn spending round before we know exactly how much we have for the next year. Neither the Treasury and Civil Service Committee nor anybody else has yet come up with a better way of doing it.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to consider the sad and moving story that appeared in the Nottingham Evening Post last Friday about Colin Jago, a schizophrenia sufferer, who slipped so tragically through the community care net? Will he have a look at that story to see whether any lessons can be learnt for our policy on care in the community?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that the story of Colin Jago is tragic. It shows what a dreadful way of life he led as a result of suffering from schizophrenia. I shall ask the chairman of the district health authority to let me have a report on his case to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt.

Mr. Allen: That is sheer hypocrisy. The Secretary of State is allowing the mental illness unit for adolescents to close.

Mr. Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman stoops any further to try to make party political points out of a tragic individual case—

Mr. Allen: It is hypocrisy.

Mr. Clarke: People must make their own judgment about where hypocrisy lies in the matter, and loud-mouthed barracking does not help.
I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) that Colin Jago was examined and interviewed by a doctor at Mapperley hospital, who decided that it was not necessary to admit him to hospital for treatment. However, we must discover the full facts to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt from Mr. Jago's sad death.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Sir Roy Griffiths recommended an earmarked grant, that the local authorities, including the Conservative ones, want an earmarked grant, and that now the other place has voted for it? Even flagship Wandsworth has made representations to the Secretary of State supporting the case for a ring-fenced grant. Why does he disagree with everybody else if it is not that he is afraid that an earmarked grant will make it only too plain that he cannot come up with the cash that the councils need to make care in the community work?

Mr. Clarke: Because good government depends on clear responsibility and accountability, and I have not been persuaded that it is right to give responsibility for this matter to local government and then for the House or any Government to try to keep to themselves part of the responsibility for determining the level of resources. No one in Wandsworth or anywhere else would want the Government to determine the total level of resources available. There is also a practical problem with an earmarked grant. I do not understand how it is proposed to distinguish the earmarked grant, made with whatever new money we might make available, from all the moneys already being spent on care in the community by local government, which already provides home helps, meals on wheels, and so on. I do not believe that it is practicable and nor, for the reasons that I have given, am I persuaded that it is desirable.

Social Workers

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist in the recruitment of local authority social workers.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is for local authorities themselves, as employers, to take whatever steps are appropriate to recruit the staff whom they need.

Mr. Worthington: Did the Minister hear the Prime Minister praising the work of child helplines the other day, when she said that we must make sure that enough telephones are provided and that sufficient volunteers are available to man them? Is not it a little hypocritical of the Prime Minister to make that remark when the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work states that an extra 800 social workers need to be trained each year to maintain the present level of services?

Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was praising the work of Childline, which uses volunteers and provides an excellent service. We pay £300,000 towards the cost of that service. The CCETSW has responsibility for training, and we have substantially increased its funding. There are significantly more people—about 4·5 per cent. more—joining the profession each year than leaving it. Of course, we continue to have discussions with employers and with the CCETSW to ensure that there is an adequate supply of social workers to undertake important tasks, in addition to the volunteers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that social services recruits not only need university degrees or to be armed with diplomas in humanities but should be streetwise? Would not it be a good idea to recruit mothers whose children have grown up—and perhaps even younger grandmothers—because such women have raised families, are streetwise, and are not as green as grass?

Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely support my hon. Friend. In my view, streetwise grandmothers are precisely the people who should be undertaking work with young families. The work that we do in training social workers ensures broad entry. It is not the case that it is only 18 or 19-year-old undergraduates whom we want to attract. We seek to recruit also the mature woman who has experience. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's words when I next meet those responsible.

Health Care, Nottingham

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Strelley health centre, Nottingham to discuss standards of health care.

Mr. Dorrell: I have no plans to visit Strelley health centre at present.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern at Strelley and other health centres about the Government's policy on preventive medicine? Is he further aware that 2·5 million fewer people have received free eye tests than in the previous year? Eye tests can detect serious illnesses such as cancer and kidney disease, and other conditions. Will the Minister admit at the Dispatch Box, on his first day in the job, that it was a terrible mistake to charge people for eye tests that were previously free?

Mr. Dorrell: No, I am unaware of any of those things. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to represent his arguments in tomorrow's debate. I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who is replying to that debate, will be able to knock the hon. Gentleman out of the water.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is almost the local Member of Parliament concerned, and I am sure that he agrees that his constituents and mine receive excellent service under the National Health Service provision in the city of Nottingham. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that health centres are growing not only in number but in excellence? I ask him to join in paying tribute to the chairman of the district health authority, Mr. David White, and to all those involved in Health Service provision in the city of Nottingham.

Mr. Dorrell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mr. White. As he said, my constituents also benefit from the considerable improvement in health care made over the past few years in Nottingham. The city has two major general hospitals, and has seen a 9·2 per cent. increase in direct care staff in the Health Service over the past five years. It has also seen a 22 per cent. increase in in-patient cases and a 22 per cent. fall in the average general practitioners' list. That is an enormous improvement in health care in Nottingham, from which my constituents, among others, benefit.

Community Health Councils

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of community health councils.

Mr. Dorrell: We have no plans to alter the role of community health councils.

Mr. Hood: Has the Minister read the leaked letter—published in the National Union of Public Employees journal recently—from the Secretary of State for Social Security, which showed that the answer given to the House is not as accurate as suggested? The letter states that it is the Government's intention to do away with the right of community health councils to complain about such things as hospitals opting out. If that is the case, will the Minister admit it, and if it is not, will he officially deny it? Consumers of health care are getting sick of their democratic rights being taken away.

Mr. Dorrell: I am afraid that I am not an avid reader of the NUPE journal, but I can confirm that no change is envisaged for the role of the community health council when a district health authority proposes the closure of a hospital.

Mr. Nelson: I welcome the reassurance that my hen. Friend has given, but will he reflect on the fact that while community health councils can be a useful sound-board for local opinion on the health services that are provided, it is the membership of the health authority that has executive control over local allocation of resources? A key issue in future is to try to ensure that the range of authority members and their responsiveness to local opinion is such that they can bring influence to bear and reflect public opinion in the provision of health services.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the changes that will be introduced next April are intended to emphasise the executive nature of health authorities. That leaves an important role for the community health councils. In many ways it will be an enhanced role after April. It creates the opportunity for them to become more concerned with the development of the service in the area for which they are responsible.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister publish for the relevant community health council any draft business plan that has been submitted to his Department or any draft application for self-governing trust status? Will he also publish for the relevant community health council a copy of his Department's response to any such draft papers, to ensure that the council is effectively able to represent local opinion when a hospital in its area is deciding whether to opt out?

Mr. Dorrell: I shall not undertake to publish draft business plans, but I give the undertaking, which my right hon. and learned Friend has given many times, that the community health councils will be fully consulted on any proposal to establish a self-governing trust.

Mr. Conway: Will community health councils be able to do much that Members of Parliament who are active in their constituencies cannot do? Given that circumstance, does my hon. Friend think that if the councils did not exist at this time tomorrow, they would be missed, or that they are much loved?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is an active Member of Parliament. If everyone was as active as him, he might have a point. Community health councils have a significant part to play in the future of the Health Service, by representing proper concerns when major changes are envisaged and as a consultee in the future development of the Health Service. I hope that in future the councils, in the same way as other bodies are concerned with health issues, will be more interested in output by the Health Service than in input.

NHS Trusts

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on how many ballots have been held in hospitals which are considering opting out; and whether any of these have shown a majority in favour of such a course of action.

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of the views of National Health Service staff or patients on the formation of self-governing trusts.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No Government have ever thought it sensible for changes in management of NHS services to be subject to ballots. Applications for NHS trust status will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Staff and members of the public will then have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any decisions are taken. I prefer the usual process of consultation rather than public referendum on such complicated and specialist issues.
A total of 195 units have so far expressed an interest in NHS trust status, with some 80 stating that they may seek trust status in 1991. That demonstrates the keen interest with which senior NHS staff, including members of the medical and nursing profession, view the prospect of establishing NHS trusts.

Mrs. Ewing: In the light of that response, will the Secretary of State tell us the definition of the electorate when such decisions are reached? Surely all categories of staff and existing, past and potential patients must be involved in the decisions as well as the community health councils, which have already been referred to. Has he established any criteria on which he will say no?

Mr. Clarke: Of course, the staff of the National Health Service are a key part of it. They deliver the service and we depend on their dedication. However, we have never operated any type of worker control and the public have an interest in those matters as well. The founding of the National Health Service was not made subject to local

ballots and I can recall no change in the 40 years since then that has been made in that way. We shall have a full process of consultation and I will refuse applications unless I am satisfied from all the information that comes in from the consultation that, if granted, a particular application will lead to a better quality of service for patients in that hospital and better value for money for all those interested in the National Health Service.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that in ballots held across the country, huge majorities have been returned that are opposed to hospitals opting out of the National Health Service? Is he further aware that almost every organisation connected with the National Health Service—the Health Service trade unions, the community health councils, Health Service charities and voluntary organisations—is equally opposed to hospitals being allowed to opt out of the National Health Service? As the Health Service belongs to the people, why does not the Minister let the people decide by ensuring that there are ballots in every area affected before any hospital is allowed to opt out of the Health Service?

Mr. Clarke: I am against any hospital opting out of the National Health Service. If people go round asking daft questions, they get daft answers, which is not a very positive contribution to running a better National Health Service. We shall have a full process of public consultation on what local people are proposing in the places that go ahead with an application for NHS trust status. The Labour party is bereft of any serious contributions. Instead of putting forward its own ideas on how we might go back to more local discretion and control in running the Health Service, it leaves the whole matter to the ridiculous local ballots being run by councils, unions and other people.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend admit to the House that the drive for NHS self-governing status comes from his Department through the chairmen of the regions and the chairmen of the districts, all of whom are party political appointments? Will he state genuinely to the House that if it is the view of local people, and especially if it is the view of consultants, doctors, nurses and paramedics working in a hospital, that they do not wish to go for self-governing status, he will refuse that application?

Mr. Clarke: I do not only not admit, but I strongly deny my hon. Friend's allegation and his ridiculous travesty of our appointment process—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: If the appointments were party political, I should have complaints from the Opposition about them. The applications for self-governing status are coming from people concerned with the hospitals and units themselves. It is rather absurd that when, in effect, we go back to a system very similar to the old hospital management boards, which gives back far more local control at the sharp end of delivery over how the Service is run, we are opposed in this way. I well remember the Labour party fiercely fighting the establishment of the district health authorities and the regional health authorities, which it now says should run the Service. Eighteen years ago, the Labour party argued vehemently that it was wrong to take away local control of hospitals. I have undergone a


conversion in those 18 years and I am inclined to think that the Labour party was right. The trouble is that the Labour party just opposes any change at any moment.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question and the Minister did not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman were asking to raise the matter on the Adjournment, that would be different.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down, please.

Mr. Dykes: On a calmer note, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if there is a proposal for a management area change and then the idea of a self-governing trust, it could cause extra delays, and that, if there is an erosion of services and facilities, as at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, there is a danger of that hospital's future being severely threatened? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay attention to that and say what he intends to do about it and when our colleague the Minister for Health will visit the hospital?

Mr. Clarke: I have visited that hospital and I certainly recommend my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to visit it if she has the opportunity. I understand the need to resolve some of the uncertainties surrounding the future of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. I shall certainly ensure, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of Health will too, that nothing connected with NHS reforms causes further delay or creates fresh difficulties for all those who work in that excellent hospital.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that he could sidestep all questions on local ballots if he would simply agree to a timetable that first put the proposals to the general electorate so that electors who had no opportunity to comment in the last election will have an opportunity to vote on them in the next one? I warn the Secretary of State that, if he persists in bulldozing through the proposals for opt-out without giving local people any voice, the next Labour Government will take back all those hospitals into local health authority control.

Mr. Clarke: I have had a look at the draft manifesto that the Labour party prepared for the next election. It seems to be so vague on management issues that I came to the view that it was voting to make no changes in particular to whatever it inherited if and when it got back into power. I am absolutely astonished that the hon. Gentleman is now committing himself to making no changes to the way in which the National Health Service is run, without submitting any proposals that he might have for local ballots in the future. If we ever had a Labour Government, it might reduce the dangers of dangerous action, but I do not think that a Labour Government would adopt such a foolish process.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a growing number of senior doctors, nurses and paramedics in the two district health authorities in my area are growing increasingly excited at the thought that they may have an opportunity to shorten the administrative hierarchy that constantly second-guesses their judgments, frequently to their detriment?

Mr. Clarke: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. I know that quite a lot of those who are interested in NHS trust status are, among other things, looking forward to being free of the day-to-day control of their district, region or other parts of the system. There certainly is widespread enthusiasm. I disapprove of all the ballots, whatever the electorate is. It is a selective way of looking at the interests of everybody who has a common interest in the NHS—it does not belong to the staff. So far, five of the ballots among consultants have been in favour and seven have been against. I hope that everybody will wait until they have a proper application and then go through a sensible process of consultation, making whatever representations they want. That will enable me to make a better-informed judgment in the end, which is in the interests of the Health Service and its patients.

Dental Checks

Mr. Rees: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now remove the charge on dental checks.

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now remove the charge on dental checks.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I see no reason to do so. It is right that adults who can afford to do so should make a contribution to this part of their dental care.

Mr. Rees: Are not dental checks an important part of preventive medicine? Has the Secretary of State noticed that independent research shows that the number of dental checks is falling? Although that may save money, is not it bad for the health of Government policy?

Mr. Clarke: I think that dental checks are important, which is why I think that those who can afford to do so will willingly pay £3·45 for a dental check. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that 40 per cent. of the population is exempt from any charge. I know of no evidence of a sustained decline in the number of dental checks. Indeed, over any lengthy period, there has been a steady increase in the number of dental checks and in the total number of dental treatments in the National Health Service.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage the dental practice board to make available treatment under the EC 18 certificate? I understand that recently the board was denied all knowledge of it and that therefore some patients have been paying for their treatment.

Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of those problems. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing them to my attention. I shall take up the matter with the dental health board and let my hon. Friend have a written response to her question.

Mr. Kennedy: Further to the answer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been talking to dentists, because all the dental surgeons to whom I have spoken over the past few months have said clearly that only people in two income categories can afford a full, prolonged and comprehensive system of dental care—those on full state benefits who do not have to pay and those in an income category such that they can afford to pay—and that the bulk of people, who fall somewhere between the two, are cutting their dental


treatment because of the cost. How can the Secretary of State deduce from that that there is no downturn in preventive medicine?

Mr. Clarke: Of course, similar representations are made to me by dentists whenever dental charges are raised generally, in line with the longstanding policy of this Government and of previous Labour Governments. However, it is clear that over any sustained period there has been a steady increase in the number of dental treatments given under the National Health Service. Over a lengthy period I expect to see a continued and satisfactory level of dental check-ups. I do not believe that for the 60 per cent. of the population who are asked to pay, £3·45 is a deterrent charge for a perfectly reasonable part of any individual's preventive medicine—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to listen to the questions and not to conduct private conversations, which is disruptive.

Mr. John Greenway: Is not it true that the new dental contract will, for the first time, pay dentists a fee for the regular patients on their list, without requiring any contribution from the patients? Although it is understandable that dentists feel some concern about the details, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a positive vote from dentists in the forthcoming ballot on the new contract would be a vote for prevention and would provide a much-needed shift in emphasis towards better dental health?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree. The new contract will enable dentists to offer patients all-round continuing care, including emergency cover, treatment plans, better information and the replacement, free of charge, of certain restorations that fail within 12 months, and so on. I have agreed the new contract with the dentists' representatives and they are commending it to their members. I very much hope that the dentists will vote in favour of the new contract, which represents a substantial improvement in our dental services, for which many dentists have been pressing for many years.

Mr. Tom Clarke: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that there is no evidence of a decline when the Minister for Health told the House in February that there had been a slight dip and when in May his Department reported a reduction of 700,000 cases, thus bucking the upward trend throughout Europe? Does the Secretary of State accept that he has got his figures wrong and will he go back and do his homework—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will hon. Members, especially those below the Gangway, desist from conducting private conversations, which are very disruptive?

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that he has plainly got his figures—and his policies—wrong?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There was a dip, but I referred to long-term trends. There is always a dip—I have no doubt that this was the case when the Labour Government were in power—when charges are increased for any part of NHS services. However, over the years, the dips are not sustained. I repeat that I do not believe that £3·45 is a

deterrent charge for the 60 per cent. of the population who are liable to pay the charge, and nor do I believe that any evidence will be forthcoming to demonstrate that it is.

Cottage Hospitals

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy changes his Department has instituted during the last six months with regard to cottage hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: There has been no change in the position. It is for health authorities to determine the pattern of services in their own locality.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the comments by the Secretary of State on 10 October when he said that the Government's new funding arrangements would ensure that
popular cottage hospitals will thrive"?
As there are now six small cottage hospitals under the axe for closure in my county, will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether that is because a different policy is being pursued in Wales or because there has been a change of policy in the Department of Health, which means that such hospitals in England are in as much danger as are those in Wales?

Mr. Dorrell: No, Sir. There has been no change of policy. The same policy is pursued in Wales and England. The policy is to allow greater delegation of decision-making to local level. Where there is a genuine and sustained local demand for a community hospital, that will be seen in the purchasing decisions taken from next April onwards.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cottage hospital provides a signal service in rural areas, especially where travelling distances are great? Does he recognise that there is a feeling in the southern part of my constituency that Herefordshire district health authority is being frustrated in its attempt to redevelop Ross cottage hospital into a community hospital by a less than fully co-operative attitude on the part of West Midlands regional health authority? Will he be careful that any advice that he gives to the regional health authorities reflects the wish to sustain the viability and independence of the health authority to provide what it deems to be appropriate for an area and that no element of discouragement floats in?

Mr. Dorrell: One great virtue of our reforms is that we shall be rather less heavy handed than we may have been in the past in the type of advice that we offer from the centre to a district health authority. I believe that as a result there will be greater diversity of local decisions and of health care available and the manner in which it is provided. We hope that that will lead to improved standards and more uniformity in the quality of health care, which in the end is what the patient is interested in.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister considered the possibility of setting up a royal commission to look into cottage hospitals with a view to safeguarding their future? He could put in charge a man who is desperate for a job—he sits below the Gangway—and who is the last leader of the SDP. He has done a good job for the Tory party over the years and the Minister could repay him the compliment.

Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about his future well-being.

Doctors (Recruitment)

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet members of the medical practices committee to discuss the recruitment of doctors.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are now in the National Health Service.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Department holds regular meetings with the chairman of the medical practices committee. We are not aware of problems with regard to the recruitment of doctors. At 1 October 1988 there were 25,322 unrestricted principals in England. That is 4,000 more than in 1979.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that not inconsiderable delays can occur between the practice obtaining approval to recruit a general practitioner and the recruitment taking place and that that is to the clear detriment of the local community? Therefore, when she next meets the chairman of the medical practices committee, will she ask him to introduce a more rigorous monitoring system that will ensure that appointments are made in under a year and that if a practice does not intend to take advantage of it, the opportunity to have a new doctor is given to another practice?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the matter, particularly the case which arose in his constituency. Time is needed to advertise and to interview prospective candidates and, of course, for new appointees to give notice. Certainly, I shall examine closely the point made and raise it with the relevant committee the next time I meet it.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and I welcome the increased number of GPs, which shows the Government's commitment to the NHS. Will she confirm that GP list sizes have dropped dramatically in the past couple of years? Does she agree that the GP now has more time to deal with the individual patient, which is in the interest of the GP, the patient and the NHS?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the first time, the GP list size has fallen below 2,000. That is a major achievement. Not only do we have smaller list sizes, but the GP has at his disposal a much larger practice team. There has been 70 per cent. increase in the number of ancillary staff in the practice. That all means better care for patients.

Mr. Win Griffiths: How many general practitioners will run their own budgets next year? Is there any truth in the rumour in the press last weekend that the software will not be available for GPs to run their budgets?

Mrs. Bottomley: The whole proposal to have budget holders is going well, and about 400 practices have expressed an interest. Clearly, they will not be finally approved until we are confident that they can undertake the responsibilities. A practice budget will provide general practitioners with more autonomy and control. GPs are willing to join the scheme and we welcome the steps

forward. We are making good progress with the software and we are confident that it will be possible fully to implement the proposals.

Community Care

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I hold regular formal and informal meetings with the ADSS, but there is no fixed date for the next meeting.

Mr. O'Brien: When the Minister meets the directors of social services will she agree to provide the additional necessary funds, as promised in the report of Sir Roy Griffiths, to maintain services to the elderly, the mentally ill and other people in need? Will she consider funding the additional social workers that will be necessary to meet the demand for social work? Will she also consider the suggestion of creating a Minister of Community Care?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, but when I meet the ADSS, which is frequently, as I made clear, I shall speak again about the vast sums already spent on community care—about £3·5 billion—as well as about the importance of new policies and ensuring that those resources are spent effectively and well in the interests of the individuals concerned. We have made it clear that adequate resources will be available and we are working openly and in close consultation with the ADSS on that popular policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Hannam: As this is World Environment Day, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the United Nations award to her? Is not it a fact that my right hon. Friend's recent decision to limit CO2 emissions in 2005 to the present levels will represent about a 30 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions from the projected levels? Surely this will mean substantial sacrifices on the part of energy consumers.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I welcome the award as a recognition of the lead that the Government have taken on environmental matters. We have put forward a target time of 2005 so that we can get down the CO2 emissions during that year to where they are this year. That is a realistic target and one which I think will become a world consensus. I am very glad that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has endorsed that as a realistic target and believes that in 15 years' time we shall have better science on which to make further decisions.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that she spoke for the whole country recently when she said that the poll tax had been a huge mistake?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken—I never said any such thing. I am very sorry to disappoint him, but he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sad that the reports that there was some common sense breaking out in Downing street have been slightly exaggerated. Is the Prime Minister aware that the costs of administering poll tax are huge? Is she aware that there is chaos in many areas about the collection of the poll tax? Does she appreciate that poll tax capping will inflict crippling losses, especially on children's education? When all those things are true, is not it obvious that the only thing wrong with her saying that the poll tax is a huge mistake is that it was a gross understatement?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman never conditions his supplementary questions to my previous replies; perhaps that is beyond his capacity to think on his feet. With regard to the collection of the community charge, the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers will be aware that we accelerated the taxpayer's contribution, the revenue support grant, to local authorities so that they got virtually three months' grant in place of the two months that they otherwise would have got. That gives them a considerable advantage in cash terms so that if they put it on deposit they have a good extra amount to tide them over any difficulties.

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will condition herself to the reality that all over the country, under Conservative and Labour councils, people are saying, "This poll tax is costing us much more than the rates ever did. Where is the sense, prudence and fairness in that?" Is not it clear that such a tax is doomed, as it deserves to be, along with the Government who invented it?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the community charge, especially as he lives in Ealing, where, having had a Labour council, there is a very high community charge. But who is the right hon. Gentleman to talk? We looked at the Labour party's document, having heard Labour's director of campaigns and communications promise on 4 April that the next major policy statement by the Labour party would be on 23 and 24 May. We were told:
In that will be contained our fully worked out alternative to the poll tax.
What did we see when we got that document? We found a list of principles followed by the statement:
The practical means by which we achieve these aims and principles are set out in a background paper.
There is no background paper. The Labour party does not have a clue.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the astonishment and dismay of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House at the decision of the unelected Chamber on the War Crimes Bill? Will she bear it in mind that Australia, Canada and the United States, three countries with legal systems not dissimilar to ours and which do not take second place to us in regard to human rights, legislated on this long ago? Will she weigh very carefully in coming to any decision on this grave

matter the words in the conclusion of the Hetherington-Chalmers report that to take no action against such monstrous crimes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Father of the House must not do that. He must paraphrase.

Sir Bernard Braine: —will taint the United Kingdom with the slur of becoming a haven for war criminals? Is not it clear that the only moral conclusion to be reached is that the Bill must be introduced in another Session?

The Prime Minister: Of course I recognise the extremely strong feelings, because of the hideous nature of the crimes. We shall be considering carefully the implications of the result of the debate in another place and how best to proceed, bearing in mind the size of the majority in this House on a free vote. It may be that the House itself will wish to discuss the matter, in which case I am sure that that will be pursued through my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Government are presiding over record levels of homelessness, high mortgage costs, high rent increases and the complete collapse of the private rented sector? What does she intend to do about that?

The Prime Minister: The Government are also presiding over a record number of homes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable proposals have been made and money allocated to reduce homelessness. It was recently announced that £250 million would be devoted to it, with considerable increases in the money being made available in the coming two years, from £985 million to £1,700 million, to the Housing Corporation and housing associations to build more houses suitable for those and other people.

Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the success of inward investment in Britain. She has no doubt noted that 41 per cent. of American investment and 38 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe comes to Britain. Does she agree that if the Labour party put the unions back in the saddle, overtaxed everyone and increased public expenditure that new investment would end and Britain would become the sick man of Europe, as it was in 1979?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that a record amount of inward investment in the Community comes to this country from the United States, Japan and other countries. Part of the reason for that is the kind of free enterprise economy that we run and our excellent record on enterprise, production and manufacturing investment. All those things would go if the Labour party ever put into practice its policy document, which goes back to the failed policies of the past.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree with the very sensible views of Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the West German Foreign Minister, who said that NATO will have to change and evolve to become the keystone of a new pan-European defence structure if the long-term stability and security of Europe is to be maintained?

The Prime Minister: They are not new or sudden. I shall be speaking to a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers at Turnberry on Thursday and there will also be a NATO summit in this country in June-July to do just that.

Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it would be inappropriate for the Government to respond to the illegal action of France in banning British beef imports by a similar illegal action of our own, it is perfectly reasonable for British consumers to use their purchasing power to boycott French goods, inluding the appalling French Golden Delicious apples?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings, but I must tell him that the Commission has been extremely good and quick in its action. It is quite illegal to ban exports from this country to Germany or France and the Commission is taking action. The special veterinary committee of the Community has agreed that Britain has taken all action possible and that British beef is safe.

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister agree that at a time of low morale in the teaching profession and teacher shortages it is a tragedy that Barnsley metropolitan borough council is having to sack teachers and close its music teaching centre, thereby depriving local children of tuition in music, simply as a result of her Government's arbitrary and artificial poll tax capping?

The Prime Minister: That is not the cause, and it is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to say that. Local authorities such as mine whose education record is unbeaten have managed to do it with a low community charge. They manage things very well with the co-operation of their teaching staff and exhibit excellent local authority management.

Mr. Amos: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amos: Will my right hon. Friend note that I had British beef for lunch? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us try to get into order.

Mr. Amos: Will she convey the congratulations of my farmers to the EEC Commission on its prompt action on the illegal ban imposed by certain EEC countries which is based on pure commercial interests? Will she confirm that all the independent scientific and medical evidence shows that it is perfectly safe to eat British beef? Does she agree that the decision by Northumberland county council to ban beef, which was withdrawn within two days, was an utter disgrace?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his meaty question. I entirely agree that the Commission has acted quickly, in response to the ban, which it regards as illegal. I agree that the special committee of veterinary experts attached to the Community has approved of everything that we have done in taking every possible measure in pursuit of the recommendations of the Southwood and Tyrrell committees and that British beef is safe. I also agree that those who have banned British beef have done so more to protect their farmers than for anything else. I will gladly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for her reply. I hope that she enjoys the rest of her day and that she has a pleasant night's sleep in a warm bed. Is she aware that this is National Housing Week? What will she do for those of my constituents who do not even have a home to go to tonight?

The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what has been done. I understand that just over 1,000 people sometimes sleep out rough in London. Some of them have other problems such as being mentally retarded, or have genuine problems and are genuine social cases. Others are not. During the lifetime of the Government, a great many hostel places have been built. There are now more than 21,000 hostel places in London, including some 3,000 emergency places and direct access beds. We have already just allocated another—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: They do not like to hear the facts, Mr. Speaker. Some £250 million will be spent over the next two years to provide nearly 15,000 extra lettings. The new housing association hostels will be allocated another £100 million, all to help with the problem of the homeless. There are far more council flats empty in London than there are people homeless on London streets.

Coach Crash (France)

Mr. Peter Snape: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the coach crash on the A6 near Auxerre in France.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): rose—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining to hear the private notice question please leave quietly?

Mr. Parkinson: Last Sunday, 3 June, at 8 am local time, a coach belonging to Montego European Travel went off the road near Auxerre in France, approximately 80 miles south of Paris, and rolled on to its side. Of the passengers and crew, 11 were killed, 18 seriously injured and 47 slightly injured. On behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, I should like to take this opportunity to express our sympathy to the families and friends of those injured or killed in this dreadful accident. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I am sure that I also speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the emergency services in France, whose prompt response may well have prevented further deaths. The British consul-general and his assistant went immediately to the scene of the accident and spent the day at the hospitals and with relatives, assisting them and providing information to the families involved.
The French started an investigation immediately, and the Government offered their help. Two of my senior vehicle investigation experts flew to France that evening to assist the French authorities, and I expect a full report on the vehicle from them next week. An examining magistrate has been appointed by the French prefecture to investigate all the circumstances of the accident.
My vehicle inspectors have already told me that the right-hand front tyre had failed. It was not a remould, was a correct size for the vehicle and was in good condition, and there was no sign of under-inflation. However, the tread had separated from the tyre, and the reason for that is being investigated further. The vehicle was fitted with a tachograph, which has been taken into the possession of the French police and is being checked.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that I must not say anything that would prejudge the outcome of the investigation. It is my intention to ensure that all the circumstances are fully investigated and the facts made available. I expect to receive a full report about the vehicle next week, and we have agreed with the French authorities that we will exchange reports.
The Government attach the highest importance to coach safety and to driver training. Before it goes on the road, each coach is approved and certificated. It is required to undergo an annual roadworthiness inspection. During the past three years, we have increased the number of special checks on coach safety to ensure that high standards are maintained. The coach involved in the accident had been checked in accordance with all the British requirements, and had been found to be satisfactory.
Britain has been playing a leading role in Europe in developing high standards of coach safety. In particular,

we have been pressing for the provision of seat belts in coaches, and, in the light of this tragic accident, we shall be renewing our pressure for the removal of obstacles to their standard fitment in all our coaches. I shall be having urgent discussions with the Bus and Coach Council, and others concerned, about any lessons that can be learnt from the accident to ensure that we maintain and secure the safest possible coach travel. I shall also seek to accelerate the fitting of speed limiters.
I would like to end as I began—by expressing my sympathy to the families and friends of those tragically involved in this terrible accident.

Mr. Snape: Let me, on behalf of all Opposition Members, associate myself with the expressions of sympathy tendered to the bereaved and to relatives of those injured in the tragedy, which has caused enormous shock and grief, especially in the west midlands.
May I press the Secretary of State about the implementation of compulsory seat belts and speed limiters? Can he give the House a date when that is likely to happen? He has rightly insisted on the unilateral implementation of seat-belt legislation for motor cars; why not do the same for coaches?
What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for stricter scrutiny of tachographs, especially on long-distance coaches? Will he call coach operators together to discuss speed and stability, and structural integrity—especially that of double-deck, high capacity vehicles such as the one involved in the accident? Has he any plans to introduce a ban on recut as well as remould tyres for coach operators, especially those operating over long distances?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the story, featured in the Daily Mail this morning, that the company had been operating illegally for some months? Is he aware that Opposition Members believe that this appalling tragedy is a direct result of coach deregulation, which has led—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—oh, yes—which has led to a proliferation of back-street operators who have neither the time, the money nor the resources to maintain their coaches adequately?

Mr. Parkinson: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the French authorities, and to join him in once more expressing my sympathy to relatives.
Seat belts are within the competence of the Community, and we have been leading the way to have them fitted in all our coaches. We have the support only of the Danes, and the slightly half-hearted support of the Germans; the remainder of the Community is opposed. As recently as last Thursday we pressed the Commission to come forward with a directive. We could take unilateral action, but it would be illegal and we could not enforce it. It would be a pointless gesture of the sort on which we do not intend to waste time.
As the House knows, since 1988 all new coaches have to be fitted with speed limiters. Any coaches built between 1984 and 1988 had to have them fitted by 1 April this year. Any built between 1974 and 1983 must have them fitted by next April. I intend to ask the Bus and Coach Council to bring forward that process. All coaches will be fitted with speed limiters by next April.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about tachographs. As he will recall, his party has consistently opposed them, under pressure from the Transport and


General Workers Union. It coined the phrase "spies in the cab." Speed limiters are now fitted to long-distance coaches and we monitor them. More tests have been carried out during the past year than ever before. Indeed, we have been increasing the number of inspections, which contradicts the claim of his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
The hon. Gentleman's question about recuts and remoulds was hypothetical. He was pursuing a point, made quite erroneously, that the tyre was a retread. It was not a retread; it was in good condition. It has been inspected by the inspectorate, and it was not failed—

Mr. Snape: Was it a recut?

Mr. Parkinson: It was not a recut or a retread. The tyre was in good condition.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the claim about the company operating illegally was made by a rival organisation, and it is being investigated. It is beyond doubt that the coach was properly licensed and was being properly operated last Thursday.
In referring to coach deregulation, the hon. Gentleman's prejudice once again overruled his knowledge. The plain fact is that these coaches have not been regulated for more than 10 years. Indeed, I believe that it is almost 16 years. It is absolute and utter nonsense to claim that the tragedy was a result of the recent deregulation of bus services. It struck an unfortunate note on this occasion.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: It is with great sadness that I inform my right hon. Friend that four of those killed on the weekend were from my constituency—Mr. and Mrs. Evans, who were celebrating their retirement, and Mr. and Mrs. Orme. I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, which I shall take back to my constituents. I am sure that they will appreciate the fact that he is urgently investigating the accident.
The families of those four people and of the others killed do not want cheap party politics and I am sad that the opportunity to do that has been taken today. They want hope—hope that lessons will be learnt and that future lives will be saved. I hope that the Government and others responsible for reviewing the position—whether coach operators, drivers or the EC—will complete their investigations as soon as possible. The Government must introduce legislation, if need be in the cold light of day when the speculation and the emotion had died down, on compulsory seat belts and, possibly, even on speed restrictions for coaches, as is the case in some EC countries.
I ask my right hon. Friend to come to the House as soon as possible with his report of the investigation, because I am sure that the families in Wolverhampton want that reassurance.

Mr. Parkinson: May I express my sympathy to my hon. Friend and those of her constituents who suffered bereavement and injury in this terrible accident? We are determined that any lessons that can be learnt will be learnt. The investigation will be thorough. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with deregulation. In spite of this terrible accident, we have one of the best records in Europe—half as many deaths as in France—and that is because we set and implement high safety standards, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: On behalf of my party, I express sympathy to all those who suffered and to their families who are still suffering. Will the Secretary of State comment on the current proposal that coach operators should have a licence for life? I hope that that proposal will be rejected and that the licence will continue to have to be renewed every five years.
Will he also comment on the inspection of the vehicles? There were suspicions about the tyres in this case, but vie have now heard that they were all right. Are all tyres inspected and are coaches which travel abroad allowed to have retreads? Will he also comment on the speed limits which apply in Britain, because I understand that coach drivers here are not allowed to use the fast lane or the overtaking lane?
Finally, will he comment on the fact that there is no training certificate for couriers. In this case they were helpful, but they could have been more helpful. The standards of couriers need to be raised, and a certificate for them approved by the Government.

Mr. Parkinson: There is a slightly misleading and worrying headline in the Evening Standard today which suggests that the driver had had the job for only 10 days. That may well have been the case, but he has had a licence to drive such vehicles for more than two years. It is a five-year licence, so it has three more years to run. The vehicle was fully inspected in July 1989 and is due for inspection again in July this year.
We are the only country in Europe to insist on a tilt test for double deckers. They have to be capable of leaning, fully laden on top, at an angle of 28 deg without toppling over before they are allowed on the road and this bus had passed that test.
We have considered speed limits. Our coaches are allowed to travel at 70 mph and to use the outside lane on motorways. Yesterday, two of our newspapers had coaches trailed and found that a number were exceeding the speed limit, which is illegal. By next April, limiters will be fixed to all coaches built after 1973. It will not then be possible to drive them faster than 70 mph. That law will be rigidly enforced and anybody who breaks it will be punished. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about couriers. He makes an interesting and worthwhile point, which I shall take up with the Bus and Coach Council.

Mr. Robert Adley: Was there not a tragic inevitability about the standard of driving that was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) when she held office in the Department of Transport as "intimidatory"? Is it not a fact that some of these tower blocks on wheels have evolved from rules which were made for single-decker coaches, which now bear no relationship to the rules needed for the double-decker buses plying in our towns and cities?
Is my right hon. Friend aware how many times I have asked him to impose speed limits on these coaches?

Mr. Roger King: Not from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is a director of National Express, and he will have his chance to speak later.
Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware how often I have asked him and his Department to consider banning coaches from the outside lane of


motorways? Is he aware that the Bus and Coach Council has consistently resisted those proposals and his attempts to introduce tachographs, which many of us have sought for many years? Will my right hon. Friend contemplate the fact that what he has just said means that the older the coach the more it can escape from these rigid regulations? Should we not now impose discipline on those people and let them argue why it should not be imposed?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend's commitment to trains and his hostility to coaches is extremely well known, and he has just given another illustration of it. The coach concerned had been certified as fit to be on the road and capable of being driven at the speed recorded. The driver held a properly obtained licence.

Mr. Snape: But was it travelling at the legal speed?

Mr. Parkinson: I was not talking about the speed at the time: I was saying that the bus was certified and the driver properly qualified.
I should like to give my hon. Friend some figures that I hope he will find encouraging. They relate to the number of casualties per billion passenger kilometres. Between 1975 and 1979, there were 1·2 deaths; between 1980 and 1984, 0·7; and between 1985 and 1988, 0·5 deaths per billion passenger kilometres. All injuries in the same period also showed a fall. There is no evidence to support my hon. Friend's totally baseless assertion that our roads are becoming more dangerous and that accidents are on the increase. The trend is encouragingly downwards.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for single questions on this very serious subject?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I add my deepest sympathies to the relatives of those killed and injured in that dreadful accident. I make special mention of the six people from my own constituency who were killed and the 15 who were injured. May I have the Minister's assurance that the resources of his own Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Health will, where necessary, be made available to the relatives who need help and advice in the aftermath of the tragedy? Will he give an assurance also that, whereas the French inquiry is a separate matter, there will be an independent Department of Transport inquiry into speed limits, safety belts and tyre safety standards—and that the results will be published in full and be acted upon?

Mr. Parkinson: First thing yesterday morning, the hon. Gentleman was in touch with my Department, and I hope that we were able to help in every way that we could. We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is probably affected worse than that of any other right hon. or hon. Member. The three Departments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will do everything that they can to help the survivors and the families of those who died.
The French have launched a police inquiry. Under French law, an examining magistrate has been appointed who will consider all the facts. In parallel, we have sent investigators to consider the technical aspects of the accident. As bodies will almost certainly be returned to this country, inquests will also be held here. We shall seek to

make available for those inquests any information that we have, and will also make it available to the House. If there is a need for further action, we shall not hesitate to take it.

Mr. Roger King: The whole bus and coach industry agrees with my right hon. Friend's remarks, and extends its sympathies to the surviving victims of a tragic disaster. Will my right hon. Friend urge upon the French authorities the need to investigate the implications of the alleged ditch running alongside a high-speed road, which appears to have been the primary cause of the vehicle going over on its side? Is my right hon. Friend aware that such double-deck vehicles are extremely stable and that only one has been involved in an accident in the United Kingdom in the 10 years that they have been in operation—when one fell on its side, tragically killing one person and injuring two dozen others?
There are several hundred such vehicles in this country, and they each travel approximately 100,000 miles a year. They are designed for reasonably quick, safe and attractive travel between cities and nations. If there are lessons to be learnt from the accident—lessons not just in coach design but in road design as well—they will be well taken on board.

Mr. Parkinson: I note what my hon. Friend says. Although I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the French authorities, I do not think that they will be persuaded to fill in any of the ditches at the roadside as a result of the accident. I confirm what he said when he gave statistics about coaches. This is a terrible accident and no one seeks to minimise it in any way, but it does no service to anyone to give the impression that such buses have proved unsafe in the past. They have a good safety record. We shall ensure that they maintain their present high standards and we will rigorously enforce the regulations.

Mr. Mark Fisher: May I join the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in their expression of sympathy for the bereaved and injured, 13 of whom came from Stoke-on-Trent, south Cheshire and north Staffordshire? Is the Secretary of State satisfied with standards in Britain, as he said that the bus met all of them? Does that not put a question mark over British standards of safety and maintenance and the speed regulations?
Bearing in mind the question mark over the operation of the company involved—which, like the travel agent, was not a member of the Association of British Travel Agents—will the Secretary of State this afternoon at least commit himself to a departmental public inquiry, which, I understand from his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, he has not yet done? Surely the least that he can do this afternoon is give an assurance to the bereaved and injured that there will be a Government inquiry?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the regulations, but although we are talking about a small company, all the evidence shows that it conformed to the law, that all its vehicles were tested and had passed the test, and all its drivers were qualified to drive such a bus. As he knows, a police investigation is going on in France and that inhibits us. For example, the police have seized the tachograph.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the accident happened in France and therefore the French are in charge of the investigation. We have sent our inspectorate over to carry out a parallel investigation. The two reports will be made available to the House, and it may well come to the conclusion that the accident has been fully investigated and is fully understood. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall learn them. I shall keep an open mind about the need for further inquiries, but the matter is being thoroughly investigated at the moment.

Mr. Michael Jack: So that we may learn more about the factors that cause tyre blow-out, will my hon. Friend ask the transport and road research laboratory to co-ordinate Europewide research on this important matter?

Mr. Parkinson: The TRRL is already carrying out investigations into the difficult subject of tyre blow-outs, which happen from time to time and have terrible consequences. The research that my hon. Friend wants is already being carried out.

Ms. Joan Walley: May I add my sympathy to that which has already been extended to the bereaved and injured? Will the Secretary of State tell us to what extent he will have a full safety overhaul? It is not enough for him to say that existing safety levels have been maintained. He needs to overhaul road safety completely. Will he also give an assurance that, when the public inquiry takes place, he will consider the schedules that road operators have to keep to catch ferries from France back to this country? Will he tell the House the last occasion on which the coach was checked?

Mr. Parkinson: I again express my sympathy to the hon. Lady, and to her constituents for their loss in this dreadful accident. Of course we shall see what we can learn from the incident. However, I must point out that we have high safety standards and that we enforce them rigorously. If more should be done, it will be done and that is what the investigation is about. We shall have to see whether anything emerges from that investigation that requires further action.
We shall also look again—and I have already discussed this with my colleagues—at the question of speed limits for coaches and whether the 70 mph limit is satisfactory. Until this terrible accident, there had been a continuing improvement, partly because of higher standards and partly because they were rigorously enforced. There is no question of seeking to do anything other than learning as many lessons as we can and taking the action necessary as a result of those lessons.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I have allowed it to run rather longer than usual because of its importance. I shall take two more questions each from both sides and then, I hope, I shall have called all hon. Members whose constituents have been affected by this tragic accident.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: The whole question of fitting seat belts on coaches has been revived by this tragic accident. Recognising the limitations placed on my right hon. Friend by the EC, does he agree that there is nothing to prevent the Bus and Coach Council recommending to its members that they should voluntarily

fit seat belts in coaches? In the process, he might also suggest to the council that, if we are to see competition on coach services, many of us would prefer to see it based on competition between vehicles that have seat belts and those that have not, rather than on speed, which sometimes appears to be the only criterion.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful suggestion and I will take up the matter with the Bus and Coach Council. Manufacturers are willing to fit seat belts if operators ask for them. Seat belts are offered to the operators, and I will suggest to the Bus and Coach Council that it encourages its members to fit them. I repeat that we cannot enforce that, because it is a Community matter and we have not been able to persuade our Community partners that seat belts are necessary. However, there is nothing to prevent members of the Bus and Coach Council from volunteering, and seat belts are available.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware, without commenting on this firm or anticipating any inquiry—which would be wrong—that it is common knowledge that many cowboy firms now operate? It is his responsibility to investigate that and to do what he can to outlaw them.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that a new motorway madness is emerging in Britain, as I have witnessed recently? Drivers are now driving on the inside lane and then cutting into the outside lane at 100 mph, which never happened before, and there is no police regulation. I have driven about 600 miles to conferences this weekend and I did not see one police car. Can something be done about that, please?

Mr. Parkinson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the enforcement of the law is a matter for the police and I will bring the matter to the attention of the Association of Chief Police Officers. On cowboy firms, one reason why we have increased the number of spot checks is to try to catch out those who are not playing by the rules and who are not obeying the law. The number of spot checks has been increased substantially precisely for that purpose. By next April, virtually all our coaches will have limiters which will be set by law at 70 mph and which should therefore control the speed of our coaches.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about motorway driving is fair. As he knows, although we have one of the best records in Europe, 105 people are killed every week on our roads and part of the reason for that is bad driving. Many lives could be saved by the simple use of common sense by drivers and by pedestrians. It has been revealed that 44 per cent. of all pedestrians involved in accidents did not look either way when they stepped on to the road. Simple precautions could save many lives.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of sadness and bereavement, the House has not distinguished itself, because most questions this afternoon have almost implied a reason for the terrible crash and disaster? Should we not do what Mr. Asquith said years ago—wait and see? The reason might be a production fault in the tyre or a bit of metal lying on the motorway. Hon. Members are panicking this afternoon and suggesting all sorts of reasons for the accident. Why do we not be sensible for a change and wait and see?

Mr. Parkinson: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. It is absolutely right for Members of Parliament to express their concern for their constituents on occasions such as this, and most hon. Members involved have been able to do so. We should not jump to conclusions about this matter. We certainly should not find people guilty before they have had a trial.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The family and friends of my constituents who are in intensive care with their children want to be quite certain that everything is being done to make sure not only that they are assisted back to this country but that such an accident will never happen again. Will the Secretary of State ensure that an immediate programme of research into the efficiency of seat belts—the lap type and shoulder type—is undertaken? Will he ensure also that the examining magistrate's report will be translated and made available to the House of Commons as soon as it is available, as the powers that are available to French magistrates are far wider than those in this country, and the report may contain information that is vital to road safety?

Mr. Parkinson: I express my sympathy to the hon. Lady. We in the Department have been convinced that seat belts would reduce the number of deaths and injuries, and that is why we have been pressing for them. We shall continue to make every effort to persuade our Community colleagues.
On the examining magistrate, I had better be a little careful. The examining magistrate may come to the conclusion that she wishes to institute proceedings. I do not say that to prejudge the issue. Therefore, I do not know at what stage she would be prepared to allow me to have a copy of her findings. As I have said, I want the House to have the full facts, and, as soon as I am in a position to make them available, I shall.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I have called all the hon. Members whose constituents have been directly involved in this tragic accident. If I have not, will they indicate and I shall call them? In that case, we must now move on to the second private notice question.

Shellfish (North-East Coast)

Mr. A. J. Beith: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement about the safety of shellfish caught off the north-east coast in the light of the warnings issued by his Department.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): On 26 May, my Department issued a public warning that routine monitoring of the north-east coast of England by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientists had found high levels of a toxin in shellfish. The toxin is concentrated by shellfish from a particular kind of naturally occurring algae which occurs at this time of the year.
My Department advised that consumption of all locally caught shellfish, including crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns could cause illness, and should not be eaten while toxin levels remained high. The warning applied to shellfish taken from the coast between the Humber and Montrose. Local warning notices were issued and posted.
The occurrence of toxins at the levels found recently in shellfish from the north-east have in the past caused serious illness. Further extensive testing of molluscan shellfish—for example, mussels—has shown that the current levels of toxin are such that the public must, for the time being, refrain from consuming them. However, with the exception of crabs, the safety of all crustaceans such as lobsters, prawns and shrimps caught off the north-east coast has now been firmly established. The testing of crabs has revealed small amounts of toxin in the edible meat, and more tests are being made to obtain sufficient reassurance to enable the warning on crabs to be lifted.
The Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office have worked closely in addressing this problem and clear advice has been given to and acted upon by the public. I should also like to acknowledge the enormous effort put in to the control action and monitoring by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Beith: Although it is obviously necessary to issue a warning about mussels and molluscs, as has happened in previous years, why, when there is no evidence of any danger from eating lobsters or prawns, did the Ministry's press release say that all locally caught shellfish, including crustaceans, crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns, could cause illness and must not be eaten? What tests had been carried out on lobsters, crabs or prawns when the statement was made? What tests were carried out over the next three days of the bank holiday weekend after the statement had been made? Does the Secretary of State realise what that greatly widened warning has done to the fragile livelihoods of the east-coast fishermen and fish processors?
What is the difference between compensating egg producers when ministerial statements are misleading and cause serious damage, and compensating the fishermen? Why is not the Minister responsible for fisheries, who is sitting beside the right hon. and learned Gentleman, responding favourably to the fishermen's demands for


reasonable compensation for the extent to which the warning went beyond what has been shown on the evidence?

Mr. Clarke: Paralytic shellfish poisoning is a dangerous disease. The livelihoods of a great many fishermen would probably have been destroyed if the Department concerned had not taken prompt action and if tragic results had occurred. We had a serious outbreak in 1968, when 78 people were affected. The toxic levels that were found on this occasion were as high as on that occasion. As the hon. Gentleman fairly said, toxic levels were lower in the intervening years, when routine local notices have sufficed.
In the circumstances, it was wise to be prudent and it was necessary to carry out the examinations, which were carried out, on crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns which feed as scavengers, to ensure that the toxin levels were safe. Toxin levels were found in lobsters, but in the digestive tract, which is not consumed. Toxin levels are still being found in crabs, the digestive tracts of which are consumed. We are continuing to monitor crabs and we shall give the "all clear" for crabs as soon as possible.
This is a naturally occurring phenomenon and I realise that it causes loss to the fishermen whenever it occurs. Indeed, we have records of it dating back to 1814. The phenomenon is well known in north America and occurs in continental Europe also. The statements given by Ministers—by my Department and others—were not misleading at any stage but were a prudent protection of public health.
I do not believe that there is any case for compensation for the fishermen who collect—they do not rear—these naturally occurring crustaceans and shellfish. Countless farmers are not compensated for naturally occurring disasters. I am not an expert on those matters and this issue is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As a non-farming Minister, with farming constituents, I do not find that an instant case can be made for compensating the fishermen, although I appreciate that they have suffered an unfortunate blow to their livelihoods from a naturally occurring phenomenon, which they all know perfectly well occurs in the stretch of the coast that they fish.

Mr. William Hague: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the way in which his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have worked together when handling this matter demonstrates the effectiveness of the current arrangements for alerting consumers when there is a possibility of a genuine problem affecting food? Can my right hon. and learned Friend think of any instance in which any other European Community country has been so quick to inform the consumer when there has been a similar problem?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Departments involved sometimes feel that they cannot win. In all these instances, we act promptly on the basis of the scientific and medical evidence. That is what we have done, on this and other occasions. However, I accept that one cannot win whatever one does. If one issues a warning, one is attacked by those whose livelihoods depend on food; if one does not issue a warning, one is attacked by the lobbyists who claim that there is a conspiracy between oneself and the producer—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): It is a hard life.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a hard life. Nevertheless, our actions on this occasion have received almost universal support. We have taken the only steps possible in the interests of public health. Although I do not have any official confirmation of this, I am led to understand that the French have banned the collection of shellfish in the mouth of the Rhone. I am certain that on all matters of food safety we have the best system in western Europe. I hope that all countries act as promptly as we do on such occasions and on all occasions.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State recognise that, although the development of algae is a natural phenomenon, it is aggravated by the pollution problems in the North sea? That is the nub of the problem. I have lived all my life on the north-east coast of England. When I was a young man, it was reasonable to collect mussels and whelks along the coast, although on and off there was a ban. However, bans were not on the scale of the present ban. When will real action be taken to overcome the problem by pressurising the newly privatised water authorities to take serious action on the problem?

Mr. Clarke: I talked about acting on scientific and medical evidence. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is not a scrap of evidence to support his assertion that the problem has anything to do with the pollution of the North sea. The hon. Gentleman is not a very old man. He is a little older than me, but he was not alive in 1814, when the first incident was recorded of these algae blooming on that part of the north-east coast. It has been a regular occurrence for more than 100 years off that coast. People have died every now and again over the years from eating shellfish. That is well known by most people. I am glad that, when the hon. Gentleman collected shellfish in his youth, he did not disregard health warnings about the dangers of collecting them in the months of May and June, when in some years the algae bloom in such a way that toxins reach a dangerous level.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while there are risks from fishing in the North sea and natural events cause difficulties for fishermen, there is a wider problem in the state of the North sea fishing industry in general? Will he pass a message to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that point, so that we can have a review of the financial arrangements for our fishermen?

Mr. Clarke: The Minister responsible for fisheries is sitting on the Front Bench at this moment. He and I have discussed the matter already. I am answering the question because it relates to public health, but my hon. Friend is much involved in the problems of fishing in the north-east. He and I regret that the fishermen of the north-east have suffered this misfortune and are having a particularly bad year because of the algae, which for the time being are cutting back part of their livelihood. I take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I know that my hon. Friend t he Minister will note them carefully, too.

Mr. John McAllion: Can the Secretary of State explain why, having issued a serious public health warning on a Saturday about algae off the north-east coast, the Minister responsible for environmental and public health issues and his Department was unavailable for comment to provide clarification until the middle of the following week? That led to maximum confusion and uncertainty about the extent and nature of the threat. Does the Secretary of State accept that such a performance by a Government Department is disgraceful and unacceptable? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that that performance is not repeated in the future?

Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, I strongly refute all those allegations. It is becoming the fashion, every time that a warning has to be issued about a food danger, for people to make absurd allegations about the conduct of the Departments. Scientists and experts were working and were available over the weekend. Ministers from all the Departments involved worked closely together. The statements that we issued were perfectly clear and accurate and were a prompt and proper response to protect public safety. It is becoming absurd. Hon. Members search for scandal when prompt action is taken to protect people against a purely natural incident. A particular alga has flowered at this time of the year off a part of our coast, and as a result of our action no one has suffered any injury to health.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me, as one who is the same age as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), was brought up on the north-east coast, lives there now and is a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, that the problem of natural algae has been known in the north-east for a long time? Is it not odd that, in the previous private notice question, everyone was being clever after the event, but my right hon. and learned Friend is now criticised for being clever before the event? The latter is the way that I prefer it.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I know that, in 1968, toxin levels were high and there was a serious outbreak of poisoning that led to the illness of 78 people. It is not just a stomach upset, for if people eat the shellfish, they are also prone to a serious paralytic disease.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, had the Departments concerned not worked closely together to issue a prompt warning, we would quite rightly be answering criticisms today about our neglect of our duty and of public health. It is somewhat idiotic for people to scratch about today trying to criticise a prompt response to a worrying problem.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side; then we must move on to subsequent business.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that fishermen in my area believe that the dumping of sewage off the isle of May contributes to the poison that occurs in the estuary of the firth of Forth, which contaminates shellfish and other fish? Obviously that is unacceptable. It is all very well to condemn Lothian region or the city of Edinburgh, but the answer is to provide resources so that, instead of a ship depositing the poison

into the sea, a fully fledged sewage works is established to handle the sewage from the city of Edinburgh. Will the Minister and his Scottish colleagues ensure that money is made available for the people of my area?

Mr. Clarke: Obviously I have respect for the fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Attempts have been made to study previous years to see if there is any correlation between the years when the algae bloomed to produce high levels of toxin and those when nutrients, including nutrients from sewage, have existed at a high level in the North sea. [Interruption.] To those algae, sewage is nutrient. There is no correlation between the two. The algae appear to bloom naturally when certain conditions of temperature, tide and so on occur, as have occurred this year. There is no scientific evidence to link that with any sort of pollution.
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about sewage to the attention of the Minister responsible. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this country has an excellent record of improving systems for the disposal of sewage and of improving our rate of dumping into the sea.

Sir Hector Munro: Of course my right hon. and learned Friend is right to give advance warning of problems, but does he accept that such warnings often affect the west coast fisheries, from which supplies are perfectly normal and okay? The public have listened to snippets of information on the radio and read snippets in the newspapers. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would have been better for one of the three Ministries to make the announcement rather than having one make it and the other two follow it up? If we spoke with one voice, perhaps we would be clearer.

Mr. Clarke: Only one Department made the announcement, but I am grateful if the other two Departments agreed with what we said, as they were involved in the decision. We issued a clear warning, which was clear about the geography as well. It is true that the particular alga has never bloomed south or west of the Humber in our history. Our statement tried to make it clear that the problem existed only between Montrose and the Humber. MAFF has continued to monitor other waters in case, for the first time, the alga blooms in other waters, but there is no evidence that it is occurring outside the affected area.

Mr. Brian Wilson: In spite of his somewhat blustering response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) the right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that, between the Saturday and the Wednesday, there was a complete dearth of specific information. Attempts to get more detailed information in the interests of fishermen and other marine users was unsuccessful. That is not an allegation but a fact, and the Secretary of State should accept it.
Does he also accept that the failure to give specific information probably contributed to the blanket ban on shellfish from the north-east of Scotland to the considerable detriment of marginal fishing ports in that area and small-time fishermen who catch shellfish? The heavy-handed approach to this matter has depressed the entire shellfish market in Scotland. It is essential for public opinion to understand that most shellfish coming from the east coast are entirely safe and that all the shellfish caught off the west coast, including mussels, are entirely safe.

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the availability of Ministers, officials or information during the time he is describing. Indeed, I am assured that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were talking to each other on the telephone on Saturday morning and were available, as were all the experts, and that there was no lack of information in our clear statements.
I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks about shellfish from other parts of our shores. This problem does not exist except on the stretch of coast between Montrose and the Humber. Indeed, it never has occurred west or south of the Humber.

Mr. David Harris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concerns of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations that the French are apparently, and perhaps typically, trying to get some commercial advantage out of this situation by imposing additional requirements on imports of crab from other parts of the United Kingdom through additional documentation requirements? Are the Government, particularly through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, taking steps to deal with that situation?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that the French have behaved quite disgracefully on the question of beef, but at the moment I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on shellfish—although I accept, as my hon. Friend says, that apparently there have been difficulties over the export of shellfish to France.
The Minister responsible for fisheries tells me that he has been in touch with the French authorities to try to sort it out. He is able to offer a system of certification to the French giving the source of crabs and other shellfish being supplied to the French market. We are confident that the matter can be sorted out with the active co-operation of the French authorities who, as I said earlier, I believe have had to impose a similar ban on some of their shellfisheries in the estuary of the Rhone.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the disruption that has occurred in the markets for these market-sensitive products? Will he publish the evidence about which he has been talking and which scientists at Weymouth have been producing? How soon does he expect to lift the warning on crab? When he does that, will he give as much prominence to the fact that it has been lifted as to the adverse publicity it received when the warning went on?

Mr. Clarke: I will of course—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose Ministry carries out the tests, will agree with me—publish the evidence on which it is based. But I issue the warning, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share with me, that, when we publish the evidence, it should not be immediately be seized on by the pseudo-experts trying to claim that the danger extends beyond the point of which we have already warned. That is always a danger whenever my Department or any other tries to issue scientific information about

problems of this kind. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall issue the evidence and I believe that it will reassure him about the action that we took.

Mr. Kirkwood: When will it be published?

Mr. Clarke: We will publish the evidence as soon as possible; I am not sure why we cannot issue it more or less straight away. MAFF is continuing to monitor crabs. Low levels of toxin are occurring. As soon as it is clear that there is no risk of high levels of toxin occurring in crabs, the warning will immediately be lifted.

Mr. Elliot Morley: We have always said that action must be taken to protect consumers in cases of this kind and that a precautionary principle in matters of food safety must apply in cases of doubt. Having said that, the Minister must be fair and accept that there has been unreasonable delay in dealing with the testing of crabs and in giving out information.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it was impossible to get information out of MAFF until the Wednesday after the bank holiday? Neither I nor the NFFO could obtain information. Does he further accept that crab samples from South Tyneside council were not taken by the Department for processing because it was a bank holiday? One would have thought that, when dealing with a public health matter of this type, some priority would have been given to dealing with such issues.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that independent tests on crabs obtained by fishermen have been ignored? Given all the delays and muddles, will he accept that fishermen deserve an ex gratia payment as compensation for the losses that they have sustained through no fault of their own?

Mr. Clarke: I do not usually face the hon. Gentleman, but the Opposition must decide whether they are shocked by the Government's lack of concern for food safety or by the fact that we take action when there is evidence of danger concerning food. Frankly, Opposition Members are trying to feed a mood of vague public alarm, when we have a perfectly straightforward case of a phenomenon that is familiar in the north-east and over which the Government have acted promptly and thoroughly.
It is not true to say that there was any difficulty in obtaining information. Perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman should consult my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for fisheries about how to communicate on such matters to obtain the information that he requires. We have an effective system for protecting public safety, and it has worked on this occasion. I think that the public are more sensible than either their politicians or the press on such subjects. Most people respect actions of the kind that we have taken, which are based on medical and scientific fact and not on spurious alarms or spurious complaints.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:

Michael Carr Esq., for Bootle.

Football Licensing Authority

Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Government to make appointments to the Football Licensing Authority on 1 June 1990.
The matter is specific, since today is the first opportunity for hon. Members to raise the matter of the failure of the Government to make the necessary appointments of chairman and eight members of this body by the date set by the Government themselves in a commencement order on 21 March. In a written answer to me on 8 May 1990, the Minister of State, Home Office said that the FLA would be set up on 1 June. I wrote to the Minister on 11 May pressing upon him the urgent need for these appointments to be made. I regret to say that I have not even received a reply to that letter. Now the Home Office has informed me that the appointments have not been made.
The urgency of the need for the FLA to commence operations is clear. Football clubs and local authorities cannot begin work on converting grounds to all-seated accommodation until the FLA, which will have the responsibility for granting licences to clubs to admit spectators, is in operation. They feel that the deadline set by Lord Justice Taylor and the Government for this urgent safety work is tight if not impossible.
The Government cannot argue that they are not aware of the seriousness of the situation. In the aftermath of the disaster at Hillsborough, the Prime Minister told the House:
I suggest that the House should not delay a legislative measure to enable us to take advantage of Lord Justice

Taylor's recommendations for another 12 months, and that it would be negligent to do so."—[Official Report, 20 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 456.]
For once, the Prime Minister was right, but 13 months later the Home Office itself is preventing the implementation of the legislation by its failure to make appointments to the FLA, and that is nothing short of disgraceful. In January, the Home Secretary told the House:
Those clubs that have not faced up to their responsibility now have a final opportunity to do so; and if they do not now act, the public will not forgive them."—[Official Report, 29 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 22.]
The football authorities have been proving that they are anxious to meet these tough deadlines. They have instituted four working groups to implement the Taylor proposals but are being prevented from putting them into action by the failure of the Government to face their responsibility.
If the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister need any further convincing of the seriousness of the situation, they have only to heed the words of the Minister for Sport:
If we do not have the legislative vehicle in place, we would not be in a position to give clubs as much time as possible to meet the timetable outlined in the report."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 257.]
For those reasons, the House should adjourn to discuss this specific and important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Government to make appointments to the Football Licensing Authority on 1 June 1990.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, the decision I have to take is whether to give his submission precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of the standing order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, for you, Mr. Speaker. So far as I am aware, no Frenchman has ever died as a result of the privilege of eating delicious British beef. However, many of our fellow countrymen have died or been maimed as a result of driving round in their second-rate, badly assembled and unsafe vehicles. Could you, as the champion of this House, tell us what rights the House has to enforce the European ruling that the French should not obstruct the movement of British beef? Alternatively, what powers does the House have to prevent the flood of European second-rate shambolic imports into this country? If we have no powers, could you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am afraid that I have no such powers. I wish that I had.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When hon. Members make speeches on a subject in which they might have an interest, it is expected that they declare that interest. In the past several months, incidents have arisen of Ministers making speeches about privatisation and then going on to get jobs in various concerns. I refer to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who took part in the privatisation of British Telecom and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Skinner: Let me finish. Then there was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who took a job with the National Freight Consortium. Then there was the last one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not remotely responsible for any jobs that right hon. Members might take.

Mr. Skinner: I am just explaining it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is taking a long time to do it. He must raise a point of order on a matter for which I have responsibility. I have no responsibility for granting these jobs.

Mr. Skinner: In the last case, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) went to a job in British Gas. I propose that, in the future, as a matter of order, when Ministers make statements about privatisation plans, they declare their interest in taking jobs later on.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has abused the process of raising points of order. This has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The sad demise of the Social Democratic party over the weekend brings to light—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me, either. We have an important debate ahead and I shall have to propose a 10-minute limit on speeches. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to keep any of his colleagues from making a speech in that debate.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?

Mr. Banks: Of course it is; otherwise I would not have raised it.
In a moment, assuming that we can make progress, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will move a ten-minute Bill. I congratulate him on being fortunate enough to be able to use this valuable procedural move to raise an important issue. The point of order for you is this, Mr. Speaker. A week or so ago, the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) combined, in a stand-up, jokey fashion, to abuse the ten-minute Bill procedure. As you know, Back-Benchers treat these Bills seriously. I have managed to steer one towards the statute book, and it will be discussed on Report soon. That shows that it is possible to use this procedure to enact a measure.
I am concerned that we may be about to have a repeat of that exercise of a week ago, in which one Conservative Member will move the Bill, not intent on carrying it any further, and another Conservative Member will speak after him. Together, they will make a few puerile jokes and then the Bill will be dropped. I do not begrudge any hon. Member the use of any device that is available to raise issues, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear that you are not prepared to see the ten-minute Bill procedure abused by hon. Members to such an extent that the Procedure Committee may decide to take it away from us.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is alleging that, he should draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee. However, what happened on that day was in order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) rose to oppose the Bill, and that is within our procedures. It is up to the House to decide whether this type of debate—which takes time out of important debates that follow—is worth while. We have such a debate today. As I have said, I shall have to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: —or a five-minute limit, if I take all these points of order.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that it ill behoves the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to condemn anyone else for frivolity in the Chamber, I wish to raise the important question of individual Members' rights. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are most solicitous about protecting the rights of individual Back Benchers, both in the House and when they visit other places.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and especially because of your relationships with other Parliaments around the world, will you look into the inability of the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to visit the Chinese People's Republic? As you know, M r. Speaker, they were offloaded from a bus at Macau on the grounds that they were too left-wing to be allowed into the people's Communist republic. Will you tell your counterpart in the Chinese People's Assembly that if we, as an open democracy, must put up with mad left wingers in our country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with me. Although I hope at some time to meet my Chinese counterpart, I do not think I shall raise that matter with him.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Lothian health board is in crisis because of financial malpractice and underfunding. There is also evidence of corruption involving the "Hibs" football club from Edinburgh. Many people are concerned about the takeover bid by the Tory spiv Wallace Mercer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ohl—yes, a Tory spiv.
Although the two cases are different, we need the Scottish Law Officers here to explain their legal aspects. We have had that opportunity before, but now it is being denied. What can we do about it? Can we summon the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland? We require them; they should be here.

Mr. Speaker: As an hon. Member with a football club in his constituency—the Crystal Palace club—I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said; however, I cannot help him.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point relating to what you said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner)—that you had no responsibility for circumstances in which Ministers who propose legislation and vote for it subsequently become financially involved in the companies that the legislation is designed to create?
Select Committee reports in 1974–75 set out a number of criteria that hon. Members must follow, and it is part of your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that hon. Members follow those rules. One of the rules clearly says that hon. Members must declare an interest when they directly have one, or might be thought to have one. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will set an example to the House and call on Ministers to declare any intention of gaining financial well-being. Some hon. Members think that the current standards of behaviour, and the financial malpractice in the House, are beginning to recall the venal practices of the 18th-century Parliaments.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to divine what may happen in the future. I could not possibly be expected to make such judgment about what any hon. Members, whether from the Front Benches or the Back Benches, might do in the future. I am concerned with order in the Chamber today.

National Audit Office (Extension of Powers)

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office so as to permit the office, on an application by a national political party, to cost that party's election commitments.
In 1983, the Labour party lost the general election after producing what was described as the longest suicide note in history. In the past 18 months, it has produced a series of policy documents, which can best be described as the longest shopping list in history: a shopping list that is notably without prices.
My Bill would enable the Labour party, through an independent office, to cost its promises. It could cost not only the direct effect of its pledges, but the hidden costs—the knock-on effects on the British economy. The Labour document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" would perhaps be better described as "See the charges and count your change". The document lists no fewer than 171 promises, which would cost the British taxpayer and the economy dear. However, only two of the promises have a price tag, and those are priced at £1·5 billion less than the stockbroking firm UBS Phillips and Drew calculates. It calculates that the total bill to date of Labour promises made in the two documents—"Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" and "Looking to the Future"—would be £19·5 billion.
The Public Policy Unit, in its report on Labour's plans, says:
It is impossible to estimate precisely how much Labour's commitments would cost and, because it is deliberately vague as to when their policies would be enacted, it is difficult to estimate the scale of the inflationary pressure which would build up.
The authors go on to point out:
Local Government spending, for example, which amounts to £40 billion can impose a terrific drain on Government resources and there is some doubt as to whether a Labour Government could control, or would have the will amongst its ranks to control local government spending.
Labour, as always, remains a high-spending, high-taxing party. It has voted against every reduction in income tax since 1979. Had tax rates remained at 33p in the pound, as Labour wanted, a married man on average earnings would today be paying £20 a week—or £1,000 a year—more to the Chancellor. The biggest con in Labour's proposals is that it promises the earth, yet pretends it will not hurt. Even on Labour's own vague figures, a 50p top tax rate plus a 9 per cent. national insurance would mean that someone earning £18,200 a year would pay more tax, which would lead to higher bills for 3·5 million people.
However, the reality is far worse than the Labour party will admit. The City firm CSFB calculates that a childless couple on £6,000 a year would lose £4·10 a week; that the freezing of the higher tax rate would drag more people into Labour's new higher rate tax bands; and that single people, and many couples, earning £17,000 a year or more would have a dramatic increase in marginal rates—for example, a married man on £24,000 a year with two children would be £24·84 a week worse off under the Labour's tax proposals.
The Public Policy Unit report concurs with the CSFB finding:


Not even the most punitive taxes on the better off will raise enough revenue to finance all of this.
It continues:
The results of some of Labour's more punitive tax proposals may well be to cause people to question what point there is in earning extra income if the majority of that money is taken away even before they even see it.
Like the Bourbons of old, Labour has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Under the Government, the reduction of the top rate of tax to 40p in the pound has led to an increase in the percentage rate paid by the top band tax payers, which has risen from a quarter to nearly a third of all tax revenues. Under the Labour proposals, taxpayers in Scotland would face an additional threat from a tax-raising Scottish Assembly.

Mr. William O'Brien: What about the poll tax?

Mr. Bennett: As for local government taxation—the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is a Labour spokesman on local government—we shall wait with interest to hear Labour's proposals. We are not prepared to take any criticism from a party that cannot produce any alternative to the community charge. Labour's proposals for a roof tax would lead to massive increases in taxation.
On Labour's own calculations, the imposition of a national minimum wage at 50 per cent. of male earnings would mean wage increases for 4 million people—one sixth of the work force. Given that about one third of public spending is on wages and salaries, that would have a considerable impact on the public sector. The impact on other groups of workers would be for the newly empowered trade unions to demand wage rises throughout the economy.
Labour's policies would place new and crippling burdens on industry. It proposes a new state bank—the British investment bank—which would offer low-cost, long-term finance to firms unable to raise money from commercial banks. Nor would pension funds be safe, as their trustees would be encouraged by changes in the law to take the interests of their regional economies into account. In addition, there would be a range of regional and, where appropriate, local investment banks for Britain's nations and regions. Those, together with local enterprise boards and something called British Technology Enterprise, would have the power to take shares in existing companies.
Some would call all that a throwback to the 1970s, when Mr. De Lorean successfully conned the then Labour Government out of a cool £80 million. Others have pointed to the late and unlamented Greater London Council-controlled Greater London enterprise board, which so successfully lost ratepayers' money. Frankly, the origins are even older—way back in the 1940s, with the men in Whitehall knowing best. As Sir John Harvey-Jones, the former chairman of ICI, said succinctly:
Whenever Government directs industry the thing invariably comes to grief … Governments which try to pick winners are not very good at it.
Labour's promise to renationalise British Telecom and the water industry, with the gas and electricity industries also in its sights, would not only rob millions of ordinary people who had invested some of their hard-earned savings in the success of those industries of their dividends but, by excluding the dividends, would cause share prices to plummet, enabling Labour to renationalise on the cheap.
We must study the hidden costs for industrial relations. Labour would bring back sympathy strikes and flying pickets. It makes no mention in its policy document of the right of trade union members to elect their leaders by secret ballot. The effect on the economy would be absolutely disastrous. As in the past, Labour is in the hands of the trade unions when it comes to industrial relations.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monkland, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) have eaten their way around the City of London—and to what effect? The Times Business News on 25 May reports Mr. Roger Bootle of Greenwell Montague as saying:
The difficult thing for Labour is how to reconcile an anti-inflation policy with its undoubted spending ambitions.
Mr. Neil Mackinnan of Yamaichi Securities, an economic consultant to Labour, conceded that the City was probably still sceptical about Labour's taxation and tax policies. All those post-prandial tummy upsets and all the Alka Seltzers, only to be told that. Perhaps those hon. Members should have left it to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He, at least, would have enjoyed the lunches, if not the duty.
The Labour party's proposals include its defence policy. It is many years since the words "Labour party" and "defence" have sat comfortably with each other. Labour is led by a leader who is a committed member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—an organisation whose constitution begins with the words:
The aim of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is the unilateral abandonment by Britain of nuclear weapons, nuclear bases and nuclear alliances.
Labour now speaks of a peace dividend. That is barefaced cheek from people who have opposed all the measures that have brought the Societ Union to the negotiating table. "Looking to the Future" contains no figures for what the Labour party will do, but we know from its last party conference that it is committed to a reduction of £5 billion in the defence budget.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not enough.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman might say, "Not enough," but £5 billion is one third of the total defence budget. Perhaps he will tell us whether the Navy, the Army or the Air Force will be scrapped.
The reality is that, every time a Labour spokesman opens his mouth, uncosted promises come tumbling out. In every vote in this House, whether on cuts in income tax, denationalisation, the repeal of the archaic dock labour scheme or trade union reform, Labour has consistently voted against efficiency and reform. It was ever thus. Labour politicians who have dedicated a lifetime's service to the creation of bureaucracy, nationalised industries and Government interference cannot change their spots, whatever the advice or instruction of Mr. Mandelson. It would be only a skin-deep change, because underneath they would remain the same old—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time.

Mr. Graham Allen: It is a great pity that one of the few opportunities for Back-Bench Members to oppose or to introduce measures has been


prostituted in the way that it has this afternoon. I regret that the very good name of the National Audit Office has been dragged into this. It is an impartial and highly professional body that has produced numerous reports exposing Government inadequacies and waste in a number of areas.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) sought to repeat a joke that might have been good the first time around, but which has fallen flat the second time. He should consider the scope of his Bill. Had it gone a little further, a number of Opposition Members might have been prepared to support it. However, the hon. Gentleman stopped short of looking at the Government's record before the last three general elections. It would have been a marvellous Bill had it been on the statute book in 1979. We could then have costed some of the commitments that the Government have enacted while they have been in power—not merely the financial cost and the waste, but the social cost. With a large number of their commitments, it is too little, too late.
Why was not the commitment to almost double VAT costed? Indeed, why was it not even in the 1979 manifesto? Why were not the commitments on income tax and other indirect taxes costed? The tax burden on the individual has risen, not fallen. The Government myth of reduced taxation has been exposed. Why did not the Government include in their manifesto, and why did they not cost, their intention to reduce the real value of child benefit? Why was not the National Audit Office invited to cost the Tory manifesto so that their false claims could be exposed?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked, why was not the poll tax costed? Why were not the financial effects of the poll tax on every household costed and made clear to the British people? Why was not the National Audit Office asked to do that job? Despite its great professionalism, the National Audit Office could not have carried out such an audit, because even the Secretary of State for the Environment has his knickers in a twist on that issue.
Why did not the National Audit Office produce a few calculations, perhaps using the Treasury model, on the cost to the nation of high interest rates? As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton said, they would have made interesting calculations, especially in relation to the high mortgage levels. In my constituency, that cost—not costed in the Tory manifesto—amounts to an additional £200 a month on average for every mortgage holder. No doubt it is the same in other constituencies.
Why was not the effect of the ridiculous sporadic and crazy exchange rate policy on British industry costed? What about bankruptcies? Why was not the demise of the Raleigh company in my constituency costed? It started in 1979 with 11,000 employees but now has only 1,000. What was the cost for those 10,000 former employees—not merely in dole, not merely in misery, but in lost taxation?
Why did not someone in the Tory party think up this marvellous Bill before now? It does not even touch upon the social costs. It is a little joke; a little sprat. The old-age pensioner has seen the real value of the pension decline. How can we cost the misery that that has created? How can we cost the cuts in benefits for the disabled and the unemployed—those who have lost their jobs as a result of

the Government's incompetence? Perhaps the great professionals at the National Audit Office could cost all that. It would be a job well worthy of their talents.
The National Audit Office could evaluate the cost of pit and factory closures and the decline in our manufacturing industry. One third of our manufacturing industry has been disposed of by the Government. The shipyards have been closed. When we look around us, we see the immense cost in human resources of giving away our international competitive position.
The Government go on about waste, and rightly so. They can teach us a lot about waste. They have wasted £48 billion of North sea oil revenue. It has been frittered away abroad and given away in income tax cuts to try to compensate for the indirect taxation—VAT, national insurance and so on.
The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not cost our programme. I have to say:
It would be irresponsible, and anyway impossible, to say … precisely how much it will cost. We do not have the advice which is available in government from professional advisers; we do not know what the world situation—or the domestic economic situation—will be when we come to office".
[ Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but that is a quote from "The Right Approach" written by the Conservative party in 1976. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for pointing that out to me. I shall send the Member for Pembroke a copy of that document so that he can memorise the quote.
The National Audit Office produced a good report a couple of weeks ago on the Government's failure to collect income tax. If an old lady gets 2p extra on her pension or in benefit to which she is not entitled, a team of people come looking to see whether she is scrounging on social security, but £5 billion is lost to the Inland Revenue and nothing is done about it, and that does not include tax evasion. If we are talking about costing programmes and failures, let the National Audit Office report on that sort of loss, which is totally unaccounted for by the Government.
Were such profligacy, waste and incompetence the responsibility of a local councillor, he would be surcharged, and rightly so. He would probably be bankrupted and have his home taken away from him and his assets and property arrested. But here, such people are promoted. They become members of the Cabinet and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out from a sedentary position 10 minutes ago, they end up with knighthoods or stacks of rewards from the City.
If we are to look to the future, I would extend the hon. Gentleman's Bill in a number of areas. I would cost the Government's promise to save the 72 marginal Tory seats that are being pumped up with additional revenue to keep their poll tax low. I would ensure that the National Audit Office examined the Tory party's accounts. It seems a little slow in putting those accounts into Companies house. I would ensure that the National Audit Office examined every company's accounts so that we could see that companies such as British Commonwealth, which is sliding down the tubes at the moment, donate six-figure sums year after year to their friends in the Conservative party.
Let us cost the Conservative party's programme—the poll tax and the privatisation of water, electricity and of


British Telecom. Above all, let us ensure that the real financial and social cost of every item in the Tory party manifesto is exposed. In that way, the British people, with the assistance of the National Audit Office, will be able to make a choice at the next general election.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just heard an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in opposition to the Bill, but in his closing comments he urged support of it. Is it not the case that a Member can oppose a ten-minute Bill but not speak in support of it?

Mr. Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am clearly opposed to the Bill, because it does not go far enough. It does not include past spending commitments which have been concealed by the Conservative party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): What has happened is quite in order. If an hon. Member seeks to oppose a ten-minute Bill, he must shout, "No." It is not necessary for him to go further than that, and that was done in this case.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Donald Thompson, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. William Hague and Mr. Geoffrey Dickens.

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (EXTENSION OF POWERS)

Mr. Nicholas Bennett accordingly presented a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office so as to permit the office, on an application by a national political party, to cost that party's election commitments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

The Army

[ Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1989–90 on the Physical Security of Military Installations in the United Kingdom, House of Commons Paper 171.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that in view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak, Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): We are in the midst of a period of profound and lasting change. Across eastern Europe socialism has been discredited as people have come to understand that only misery comes from centralised economies and national plans and the pursuit of egalitarianism—in fact, the policies pursued by successive Labour Governments in Britain since the war.
The changes that we have seen have not occurred by accident; they are the result of a gradual realisation in the Soviet Union that it was impossible to match the technology of the west while at the same time providing its people with a decent standard of living.
I believe that historians will judge that there were significant milestones down the road to new thinking on Soviet defence strategy—first, the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles across Europe. That demonstrated the determination of the NATO alliances to match Soviet capabilities and to risk the short-term unpopularity from their publics when doing so.
The second milestone was President Reagan's announcement that America was prepared to spend billions of dollars on the strategic defence initiative and to invest in new areas of technology that might not only give the west an impregnable shield from incoming ballistic missiles, but, much more likely, lead to a spin-off of revolutionary weapon systems that could radically alter the balance of power.
At that point the Soviets realised that they were involved in a race that they could never win. There was only one way out and that was by negotiation—serious negotiations to remove a whole range of intermediate nuclear forces, to reduce radically strategic weapons and to bring down the superior numbers of Soviet conventional forces.
The interesting thing about those two important milestones—the deployment of cruise and Pershing and the launching of the SDI programme—is that they were both bitterly opposed by the Labour party, which was wrong on defence policy then in the same way that it is wrong now.
We have, of course, seen in recent months a series of extraordinary developments in eastern Europe, and in the relations between the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Those have already brought about fundamental changes in the European political and security landscape, many of which appear irreversible, and more changes are inevitable.
The most significant change will be the impending unification of Germany, which we warmly welcome and


which has been one of NATO's long-standing objectives. The German Government now appear to envisage all-German elections in December or January, with state unity likely to take place shortly before that. This makes it all the more important that we make good progress in the two-plus-four talks and ensure that we resolve the external and security aspects of unification in parallel with the internal aspects.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has made a grand opening to his speech. Can he say whether he is now announcing that a proper defence review is being undertaken—or is the situation to continue whereby one Minister undertakes such a review with the opposition of the Secretary of State for Defence and presumably that of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces?

Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, the work that we are doing on options for change is an aspect that I shall cover later in my speech.
As to the central question of a united Germany's membership of NATO, both the East German and West German Governments have made clear firm support for that, as have other NATO countries and some east European countries. But while we do not regard a united Germany's right to choose membership of NATO as negotiable—it is enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act—we want to ensure that the Soviet Union's security concerns are properly met and have no wish to exploit the situation to the Soviet Union's disadvantage.
The process of change in security in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe to some extent predates the political transformation that has taken place since the historic events in Berlin last November. There were clear signs before then that the Soviet Union was making changes in its defence posture and force levels. In December 1988, President Gorbachev announced his intention to make significiant unilateral reductions in Soviet forces, including cuts of 500,000 men, 10,000 tanks, 8,500 artillery pieces and 800 aircraft. Our evidence suggests that those reductions are now well under way across the whole Soviet Union.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend rightly says that we must take account of Soviet concerns and fears, but will he confirm that in no way will those concerns and fears be allayed by a decision by the Americans at some future stage not to deliver to this country the commitment that it has given to Trident?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I think that there is rapid realisation in the Soviet Union, as there has always been here, that the stalemate produced by the ownership of nuclear weapons by both sides is not as unsatisfactory as might have been thought in the past. I hope sincerely that the Soviets are now moving away from the concept of a nuclear-free Europe.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister will acknowledge that nuclear-owning powers are not the only states in the world, and that 139 non-nuclear countries have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Are they to be denied the operation of clause 6 of that treaty for the indefinite future? As the Minister knows, that clause commits nuclear nations to negotiate in

good faith the removal of nuclear weapons. Why are not the British Government doing something about getting rid of Trident, in order to honour and conform with the obligations contained in that treaty?

Mr. Hamilton: I am well aware of the contents of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it is somewhat idealistic to believe that there will ever be a time when the world will be free of all nuclear weapons. It is one of the many illusions of the unilateralist wing of the Labour party—I say wing, but it seems to me that it makes up most of the party—that we shall somehow reach the point at which there will be a non-nuclear world. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the reality is that we are seeing a spread of and an increase in the ownership of nuclear weapons in the world, not a decrease.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister welcome that development?

Mr. Hamilton: Certainly not, but it is a fact with which we have to live. I do not want to be in a position in this country in which Libya has a nuclear weapon and we have none—yet that is the point towards which current Labour policy is taking us.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the British Government believe that they should not exploit German unification in the way that the Minister said, and if it is suggested that eastern Europe, as part of NATO, would have no NATO deployment at all within the East German zone, is the Minister suggesting as an alternative that there should be no NATO placings within Germany over and above those currently available in West Germany?

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still in the early stages of the two-plus-four talks, and the whole question of what troops should be in eastern Germany, and what will happen in respect of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from there, has to be agreed. Presumably we shall see a united Bundeswehr, including forces of the NVA, at the same time as there is a united Germany or subsequently. However, at present it is difficult to anticipate whether NATO troops will be positioned in East Germany. That remains to be negotiated, and it is what the two-plus-four talks are all about.

Sir Alan Glyn: Surely it is impossible to have a united Germany in NATO, with our forces in West Germany, and still have—as was said by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—Russian troops in East Germany, however few they number. One cannot mix the two.

Mr. Hamilton: Yes—clearly that is the way that the talks are going at the moment. The Soviets are considering keeping residual troops in eastern Germany, but I think that they accept that there must be a time limit on the withdrawal of those troops. I personally should not want to be in command of Soviet troops in East Germany after East and West Germany become united. They would not be in a very enviable position. I shall refer to that aspect again later.
More recently, bilateral agreements have been concluded between Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, which will see the withdrawal of all 105,000 Soviet troops now in those countries by June 1991. That


process of withdrawals has already begun and there is every sign that it will be completed on time. Although the west has said that it is prepared to contemplate a transitional period during which Soviet troops will remain in what is currently the GDR, it seems unlikely that the Soviets will want to keep their troops there any longer than necessary, given that it will scarcely be a friendly environment. That relates to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn).
Discussions have also been opened on the possible withdrawal of Soviet forces from Poland. Overall, there seems a good prospect that, by the middle of this decade, if not before, the 500,000 Soviet troops now in central and eastern Europe will be gone.
Moreover, the countries of eastern Europe are also making major reductions in their own forces. In Hungary, for example, there are plans for 40 per cent. reductions in tanks and artillery and a 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. cut in manpower. The Czechoslovakians are cutting manpower numbers and the length of conscription, and are destroying 850 tanks. In Poland, major reductions in tanks, aircraft and artillery are planned, and its armed forces were reduced by about 30,000 last year, with further reductions to follow.
In addition to those major changes in the level and deployment of forces, we are witnessing the disintegration of the Warsaw pact as an effective military organisation. The military risks facing the alliance have already been greatly reduced. As the House will know, NATO is accordingly prepared to make appropriate adjustments to its military readiness. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the continuing military imbalance in Europe and of the massive forces that the Soviet Union continues to have at its disposal.
The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the conventional arms control talks in Vienna. I visited those talks last week and was able to discuss with delegates a new British technique for the cheap destruction of tanks. The technique, costing only £50, involves the use of about 30 lb of plastic explosive and has the effect of quickly rendering a tank unusable prior to the more time-consuming process of recycling.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister suggests that we must keep up the level of our conventional weapons because of the threat, as he sees it, posed by Soviet conventional weapons. However, the Minister just said that the Soviets are likely to withdraw, and want to withdraw, from much of central Europe anyway. If the Soviet Union intended to use conventional weapons against a united Germany and the west, is it not true that it would have to fight its way through to the western lines? Did the Minister take that into account when considering what he calls the imbalance of conventional forces?

Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, that is something that one has to take into account. The reaction of Polish forces if the Soviets were to drive through Poland would have to be taken into account. That also affects warning time and the period that we would need to reinforce, which must be revised in the light of a future when Soviet forces might be concentrated within the Soviet Union, or possibly even further back than the western military districts, which cover such areas as the Ukraine.
The conventional forces in Europe talks aim to eliminate the Soviet and Warsaw pact acknowledged superiority in key types of offensive military equipment, reducing overall holdings on both sides to below NATO's current levels. Accordingly, we expect the United Kingdom, including the British Army, to take an equitable proportion of the reductions that will be made in holdings of some equipment.
The Vienna talks continue to offer the best means of permanently and verifiably reducing conventional forces in Europe, to the benefit of all concerned. We are therefore, in common with our allies, committed to seeing those talks through to a successful conclusion. Although we have recently seen some slowing of progress, the signs continue to be that the Soviets, like us, remain committed to achieving the completion of a CFE agreement this year.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the possible reductions of British forces and the number based in western Germany, is the Ministry of Defence examining certain areas of Scotland with a view to using them to train Army personnel, and especially as tank training grounds? If some British regiments are withdrawn from Germany, are they likely to be located in Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton: It is quite wrong for me to be drawn on the options for change at this stage or on any of the details. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that the Ministry of Defence is always considering areas throughout the United Kingdom, to increase the number of training grounds. We still do not feel, in the light of where we stand today, and without any question of any forces being brought back from Germany, that we have enough training areas, and we should like to extend them if the opportunity arises. Scotland is certainly an area that we have been considering, for example, when estates are up for sale.

Mr. Allan Rogers: May I press the Minister on the subject, as I understand that the Ministry of Defence had been attempting in recent years to review the amount of land that it holds and not to increase it. Is the Minister now saying that he is seeking to increase the amount of defence land? Are not the ranges at Castlemartin sufficient for training, especially as the German Panzers will not train there any more? I presume that they will not wish to train in this country if our tanks are to move out of Germany.

Mr. Hamilton: The general feeling is that we could do with more training areas, and we have always taken the view that we should like to acquire large areas if they came up for sale and were reckoned to be suitable—the consensus is that we do not have enough.
Apart from CFE, there is also the prospect of progress towards reductions in both nuclear and chemical weapons. In the nuclear area, we can look forward to negotiations to achieve reductions in the number of short-range nuclear weapons deployed in Europe shortly after the signature of a CFE treaty. Encouraging progress was made at the Washington summit, which we hope will lead to an early strategic arms reduction talks agreement. As to chemical weapons, the destruction agreement signed at the summit is an important breakthrough and should provide added impetus to the Geneva negotiations, which have as their aim the global elimination of those weapons.
The changes already taking place in Soviet force levels and deployments, together with the changes in eastern Europe, mean that we face a very different security situation in Europe. Further reductions in Soviet force levels and withdrawals from eastern Europe, together with the progress in arms control agreements, will mean that, by the middle of the decade, the situation will have changed even more radically. So it is right that, both within NATO and nationally, we should be taking a close look at our strategy and force structures.
Indeed, NATO Defence Ministers at the recent Nuclear Planning Group and Defence Planning Committee meetings have already commissioned reviews of nuclear posture and military strategy. However, the basic principles of alliance strategy remain valid. We must continue to deploy an effective mix of nuclear and conventional forces in Europe to preserve security. We must not forget that the Soviet Union—whatever the intentions of its leadership—will continue to be the dominant military power on the continent of Europe. Even when it has reduced to the level under negotiation in Vienna, it will still have 12,000 tanks—by far the largest national force. In addition, it will, of course, continue to retain substantial forces east of the Urals, unconstrained by the current arms control negotiations.
At the same time, the Soviet Union has not escaped the popular pressure for reform sweeping through central and eastern Europe, and the internal strains to which it is subject are clear for all to see. We should therefore not be acting responsibly, when addressing our future military requirements, if we were to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union remains a militarily very powerful, and potentially unstable, neighbour.
So, there are some things that must not change—membership of NATO will continue to be the best means of guaranteeing our security, even though NATO will have to adjust to changed circumstances. NATO is a defensive alliance with no aggressive intent, and there are signs that the eastern European countries, including the Soviet Union, are now beginning to recognise that. It has served us—and Europe—well over the past four decades, and it would be foolish now to consider abandoning the firm commitment to the alliance that has brought us so much progress.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would the Minister consider favourably an application from the Soviet Union to join NATO?

Mr. Hamilton: As NATO was originally set up to oppose the Soviet Union's military power, things would have to change more than they have already before that was a serious proposition.
At the same time we, along with other allies, have made it clear that we see advantage in giving the conference on security and co-operation in Europe an increased role. Our ideas for a CSCE summit were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her speech to the Königswinter conference in Cambridge at the end of March. She said that the overall aim for the summit should be
a major step towards the creation of a great alliance for democracy, which would stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond".

The summit should sign a CFE agreement and look ahead to the next steps in arms control in Europe. It should also further the principles of democracy, free elections and the rule of law; prosperity, the promotion of market-oriented economic reforms; and stability throughout Europe. CSCE will have an important role to play, but as an addition to, not a substitute for, the NATO alliance.
Nationally, as hon. Members will be aware, we are conducting a review of the options for changes in our force structures and levels, which is designed to ensure that our forces continue to be appropriate in radically changed circumstances. In conducting that, we are, of course, bearing it in mind that, in the transitional period ahead during which we expect the CFE agreement to be implemented and the Soviet withdrawals from eastern Europe to take place, there will continue to be uncertainty and dangers of instability.
In these times of extraordinary change and hope in Europe we should do well to remember that it is always easier to make reductions than to rebuild a capability once it is lost.

Mr. Derek Conway: Perhaps my hon. Friend could put some minds in the House at ease, as hon. Members may be concerned at reports about the future size of the Army, especially the number of infantry battalions deployed. Will he confirm that any changes that come about will definitely be open policy decisions, and that there will not be reductions in the number of infantry units on the basis of a reduction in recruitment programmes or advertising campaigns for new recruits into the Army? Back-door reductions in British infantry will not be tolerated.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is trying to draw me on more detailed work and on matters concerning options for change that have not yet been considered. We are still in the early stages of work on options for change, and I cannot be drawn further than that. We have much further to go before the sort of detail that my hon. Friend mentions can be examined.

Mr. John Browne: Further to that question about reductions, can my hon. Friend assure the House that whatever the size and level of the Army in the future—I quite understand that that has yet to be determined—the regimental system will be maintained, as opposed to the infantry corps system, which is common in some other armies?

Mr. Hamilton: I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that we shall continue to have regiments in the British Army and that we shall not move over to an enormous army corps.
We must not be afraid to make changes, but we must ensure that we keep in step with the realities of security in Europe. We hope that it will be possible to reduce the numbers of British-stationed personnel, although we should, of course, do so only in full consultation with our allies. None the less, the continued presence of significant British forces in Germany, including a robust and efficient British Army of the Rhine, will be essential as a contribution to collective security.
We are therefore taking great care not to take decisions that could put at risk the Army's capability to do its job. We also continue to make improvements to the Army's organisation wherever we can, to make the most


cost-effective use of resources. In particular, we continue to examine how to make the most efficient use of our personnel, whom we can expect to become an ever more precious resource. Last but not least, we continue a comprehensive programme of modernisation for Army equipment to ensure that, whatever happens, the British Army remains both modern and capable.
If all goes well, the Army will, as I have said, be making some reductions in its holdings of certain types of equipment as a result of the negotiations on conventional forces in Europe. Furthermore, if we succeed in achieving security at somewhat lower force levels, we shall have to take account of the reduced density of any future battlefield.
These are early days, but it seems likely that there will be an increased emphasis on the need for flexibility and mobility. The Army of the future will also need to be able to hit hard and fast, and perhaps at greater ranges. Those requirements will be demanding and we shall need to take careful decisions to ensure that our mix of forces remains the most appropriate. Along with our allies, we shall also consider the scope for extending multinational integration in NATO forces.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for flexibility. Reading his mind, am I to understand that we are likely to invest more in helicopters than in armour in future?

Mr. Hamilton: It is almost impossible to make a reference to mobility without my hon. Friend making a pitch for helicopters. We shall take into account his point over the years about the superiority of the helicopter over the tank when we do more detailed work on options for change.
Extending multinational integration in NATO forces would provide a demonstration of political commitment and an opportunity for all nations to share the burdens of collective defence. Apart from the important political factors, multinational formations could offer scope for rationalisation and the effective use of resources, although the advantages of integration will have to be weighed against the operational penalties of differing languages, equipment and methods of operation. It will be important that we choose the right operational level at which formations should be multinational and ensure that the right balance is struck to maintain military effectiveness.
I know that the Army is looking forward to meeting the challenge that change will bring and that it will bring to the task the imagination, determination and professionalism for which the British soldier is rightly renowned throughout the world.

Dr. Godman: Is the Minister satisfied with the counselling provision and the financial assistance given to the widows and families of soldiers killed, for example, on active duty in Northern Ireland or in road accidents in Germany?

Mr. Hamilton: I know that the Army pays great attention to giving such support. If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to believe that those services are not working satisfactorily, he may like to write to me about individual cases. One cannot talk effectively in generalisations on that matter.

Mr. David Winnick: The Minister has given us a traditional, right-wing Tory speech. Will he bear

in mind another aspect? There is deep concern over the slaughter of service men by IRA units. Last week, there were the horrifying murders of the Army major in Germany and of the 19-year-old soldier in Lichfield in the west Midlands. How that brings about a united Ireland is wholly beyond my understanding or reasoning. As we recognise that the British Army is faced with a terrorist onslaught, I ask the Minister whether there are further ways to try to safeguard British service men. We all recognise the difficulties, but we should take steps to try to ensure that such innocent lives are not lost.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I shall come to Northern Ireland and security later. If there is any lesson to be learnt from IRA outrages, on how we can change our practices to ensure our people's safety, we must learn it. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept, that becomes more difficult when the strategy of the IRA changes from one outrage to another.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In view of the deeply felt and sensible view just expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it is time that there was a consensus among all parties, including the Labour party, in favour of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is wrong that we should continue to have divisions on the matter.

Mr. Hamilton: I share my hon. Friend's views on the matter. It is sad that the House continues to divide on that important measure, which does much to enhance security in Northern Ireland and which makes the difficult job of the Royal Ulster Constabulary slightly easier.
I have visited dozens of Army units throughout the United Kingdom and overseas during the past 12 months and I know from my meetings with the service men arid women that morale is high and the mood optimistic. The Army will, I know, maintain that spirit and build upon it in the years to come. I know that right hon. and hon. Members of all parties will wish to join me in praising the Army's dedication and achievements.
I shall now look at issues of security and operations in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains the Army's largest peacetime commitment. The current strength of the Army in Northern Ireland in support of the RUC comprises 10 Regular Army battalions—about 11,000 personnel—and nine battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment—about 6,300 personnel. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force also continue to make a major contribution to security in Northern Ireland.
In March this year, there was a change in the way in which the Army is deployed in Northern Ireland. A fifth roulement, or short-tour battalion, was deployed to the Province in place of the resident battalion formerly based at Aldergrove, where accommodation had reach the end of its planned life. I can reassure the House that that change has not in any way reduced the level of support provided by the Army to the Chief Constable of the RUC.
I should like to take this opportunity to record my support for those courageous members of the UDR who continue to serve the community in combating terrorism from whatever quarter. The UDR makes a vital and valued contribution to the Army's support to the RUC-led anti-terrorist effort. That contribution has, on occasions, quite wrongly and unjustly been called into question. I am very pleased that Mr. Stevens's report, which, as the


House will be aware, was published on 17 May, concluded that the passing of information was restricted to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institution-alised. As Mr. Stevens has reported, his inquiry was thorough and wide-ranging, and I hope that his findings will silence those who quite unjustifiably have criticised the UDR as a whole for the misdemeanours of a very few members. The IRA continues to murder and to maim.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I must make it clear that many of us with close knowledge of the Ulster Defence Regiment were already convinced of the conclusions at which Stevens would arrive long before they were published. Is not it unfortunate that, at one stage in his investigation, Mr. Stevens had 28 homes identified by having them searched by more than 300 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? The lives of 28 members of the UDR and of their families were placed in serious jeopardy. Is not it regrettable that at least one quarter of those people—and probably more—have had to move house because of the threat brought about by the bungling way in which that aspect of the investigation was carried out?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will accept that it was important that the Stevens inquiry was seen to be carrying out its duties impartially and without any outside influence; otherwise, its findings would have been questioned. In those circumstances, it was important to give him the freedom to act as he thought right. I accept that it was regrettable and that, as a result of raids on people's homes, some people had to be moved, and it would have been better if that could have been avoided.
The IRA continues to murder and maim service personnel. During 1989, 11 Regular Army and two UDR soldiers were murdered by terrorists, and 190 were injured. This year has seen the murder of six UDR soldiers, four of whom were horrifically murdered by an IRA land mine on 9 April, and one regular soldier was murdered by the IRA on 5 May. This year, 70 Regular Army and UDR soldiers have been injured.
The IRA continues to extend its campaign of murder and violence to the mainland and the continent. To mention but a few of the cowardly attacks—11 Royal Marines bandsmen were brutally murdered in a bomb attack at Deal last September; and, during May, one soldier was killed, and one injured and seven civilians were injured in explosions in London. On the continent last year, a soldier was killed in front of his wife and children who were themselves injured; an RAF corporal and his six-month-old baby daughter were murdered; and a soldier's German-born wife was murdered. Those barbarities, horrendous in themselves, serve to illustrate the threat faced by the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, the people on whom the terrorists have inflicted their campaign of violent lawlessness for more than 20 years.
Last Friday night, the terrorists committed two further sickening atrocities—the callous shooting of three unarmed teenage soldiers at Lichfield railway station, killing one, and the ruthless murder of an Army major as he returned home to his family at a housing estate in Dortmund.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: One of the people to whom the Minister referred was my constituent, Private Robert Davies of Waun road, Pontarddulais, an 18-year-old—which is different from the press reports of a 19-year-old boy. He was savagely gunned down. I am privileged to be part of an armed forces parliamentary scheme this year, with the Royal Navy. As part of that scheme, I have been conscious of security problems. I shall certainly not identify them, but I should be very glad if the Minister again considered a review of security, to see not only what lessons can be derived from the shooting but what loopholes exist in security arrangements and what resources need to be diverted to protect our armed forces personnel, who do a marvellous job in peace and in war in protecting this country. The Minister will find that there will be major problems in attracting young men and women to the armed forces and retaining them unless those resources are provided fully to protect them on and off duty.

Mr. Hamilton: First, I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is on the armed forces scheme. I hope that he is finding it beneficial. Secondly, whenever there is an outrage such as this, we always look to see what lessons can be learnt from it. I do not think that there is anything to be achieved by a massive review of security because we are dealing with a changing pattern of terrorist outrages. Therefore, we must adjust our position as each outrage takes place and see whether there are lessons to be learnt. I shall refer to resources that have been dedicated towards that. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that they are massive and should do something to sort out the problem.
Ironically, the fact that the IRA is increasingly searching for so-called soft targets in Britain and on the continent is a measure of the unrelenting pressure being brought to bear on it by the security forces in Northern Ireland. It should be in no doubt, however, that it will be tracked down with similar determination on whichever side of the Channel it chooses to hide. I should like to take this opportunity to praise the rapid response of the West German police to the shooting of Major Dillon-Lee, whose murderers were very nearly captured at a road-block.
The protection of our service men and women is of the very highest priority, and we are continuing to improve security and introduce all practical and cost-effective measures to guard service men against attack wherever they serve and are at threat. As the House will be aware, an additional sum of £126 million was made available last year to fund a major package of security enhancements in Britain and on the continent, including the provision of guards and of physical security measures, such as fences and closed-circuit television and mirrors for searching under vehicles.
It was originally envisaged that the programme would take three years to complete. However, every effort has been made to speed up progress and, for the most part, implementation of the enhancements will have been compressed into two years. Indeed, the majority of the physical enhancements are already in place. For example, at Eltham, had it not been for the use of anti-shatter window film, the number of injuries would have been much greater. That attack demonstrated the effectiveness of such simple and unobtrusive measures.
Urgent consideration is currently being given to the further lessons that can be learnt from recent attacks and the measures that can be implemented against specific threats, although there is, of course, no absolute protection against a violent, determined and ruthless terrorist.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister finishes his remarks on Northern Ireland, will he clear up the question of what information about alleged sexual scandals in relation to the Kincora boys home was or was not passed on to Mr. Ian Cameron, a senior officer at headquarters in Northern Ireland? Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will pay some attention to that question.

Mr. Hamilton: We have been endlessly over that ground. As the hon. Gentleman knows, two inquiries have dealt with Kincora and have gone into great detail. Despite the hon. Gentleman's efforts to continue to rake away at the matter, I do not believe that there is any evidence that suggests that evidence has been withheld that would have led to the conviction of the people responsible for those homosexual abuses any earlier than was actually done.
I should like to mention the Defence Select Committee's recent report on the physical security of military installations, which has been included on the Order Paper for this debate. We are grateful to the Committee for its inquiry and report and are pleased that it has recognised the difficulties of providing an effective defence against the terrorist threat. As one would expect, the Defence Committee has taken a rather more sensible view of security than some press commentators, and we shall be making a considered response to the Committee in the usual way.
I should stress again that complete security is unrealistic and that we have therefore to focus on risk management. Simply throwing money at the problem will not solve it. Our intention is that countermeasures against terrorists should be as effective as possible, subject to the requirement that life must, as far as possible, continue as normal. One of the options in providing security is the use of commercial security companies. The Committee had some criticisms of the performance of some of the companies that we use, and we have noted them. But commercial companies will remain one of the options available where they can demonstrate that they provide an adequate service. We continue to keep all contracts with commercial guard forces under the closest scrutiny and monthly reports on the performance of firms are made to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. Since the reviews have been instituted, three contracts have been terminated and a further three will not be renewed.
The callous murder of two Australian holidaymakers in Holland on 27 May has shown that terrorist attacks may also be directed towards the civilian community. In that particular case, the only "excuse" given by the terrorists was that the car had British number plates and they therefore assumed that the two men were soldiers. The House will recall that in 1988, I announced that we were scrapping the distinctive British Forces Germany number plates in favour of UK-style plates. I also said that we would keep the situation under constant review. Since then, with the ready co-operation of the Federal Republic

of Germany authorities, to whom we are most grateful, we have decided additionally to provide the choice of German-style number plates for the drivers of left-hand drive cars. I am sure that the House will understand why no advance announcement of our intentions was made. The plates are not being issued and a significant number are already being used. That change should provide a further valuable addition to our range of protective measures. We shall continue to keep the situation under the closest scrutiny.
There is one further point that I should like to cover before moving on. It has been said that the shooting in Roermond, and other similar so-called "mistakes" when the IRA has murdered or maimed civilians, demonstrate the depths to which the IRA has sunk. They are not new depths—the IRA has from the very outset shown that it has no compassion but only total disregard for life, soldier or civilian, man, woman or child. We have in hand a robust security education programme for service personnel and their families, underlining the need to be vigilant to the terrorist threat at all times. However, it is equally important that the civilian community should be alert and watchful. No one can be truly safe while those vicious men and women are at large.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister assure the House that no families of Army, Navy or Air Force personnel live outside the perimeter walls of barracks without security cover?

Mr. Hamilton: That depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "security cover". A number of people live outside the perimeter fences and we take security precautions for them in conjunction with the local police. I am not saying that they do not get any protection, but neither am I saying that they get very much.

Mr. Cryer: May I share the Minister's condemnation of the Provisional IRA and its unscrupulous and immoral acts of slaughter of innocent members of the public and innocent members of the armed forces? However, will he differentiate his moral condemnation of the IRA from his moral support for the retention and deployment of nuclear weapons, which involve the potential mass slaughter of millions of innocent men and women on the decision of a tiny handful of people? That seems at odds with his claims of morality.

Mr. Hamilton: I have never understood the hon. Gentleman's views on morality on this matter. A conventional war was fought in Europe between 1939 and 1945, in which millions of people died. There were no nuclear weapons there whatever. There is nothing particularly safe about conventional war and there should be no suggestion that in fighting a conventional war a minimal number of people will die. People die in their millions in conventional war. We are in the business of preventing war, and I believe that the nuclear deterrent in Europe has played a major role in ensuring that there has not been a third world war on European soil; and, as a result, millions of lives have been saved. I find that an extremely moral standpoint.
During 1989, 184 awards for gallantry or meritorious conduct were received by service personnel, including 29 awards for the UDR. Those awards are but one means of


illustrating the debt that we all owe to the bravery and devotion to duty of those who serve in the armed forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Richard Holt: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the IRA and Northern Ireland, will he reflect on the fact that Parliament recently voted to give an additional £40 per week to all those service widows whose husbands died before 1973? However, as a result of a quirk, widows whose husbands were killed in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1973 have had their ex gratia payments taken from them. Therefore, instead of receiving the full £40 each that Parliament intended, they are receiving considerably less. One of my constituents, whose husband was killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland, is only £12 per week better off. Will my hon. Friend please look into that matter because I am sure that what has happened was not the intention of the House or the Government?

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was aware of people's difficulties, relating to the pre-1973 rule. What has happened was not what we were trying to achieve and I shall certainly look into the matter for my hon. Friend and write to him.
Last year, the armed services maintained a constantly high level of operations in support of the RUC, achieving notable successes against the merchants of death. During 1989, 327 weapons, 37,700 rounds of ammunition and 7·5 tonnes of explosives were seized by the security forces. Over the same period, 196 bombs were made safe and so far this year 61 bombs have been neutralised—an amazing testimony to the mettle and skill of the bomb disposal teams. Regrettably, it is clear that the IRA is still determined to carry out its campaigns of violence and intimidation, but there can be no doubt that the security forces' achievements that I have just mentioned allow the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland to go about their normal business and have saved the lives of many civilians and service men who would otherwise have been added to the number already viciously murdered by the terrorists.
The terrorists continue to bring imprisonment and death down upon themselves. Last year, 233 people were charged, in Northern Ireland, with serious terrorist-type offences, of which 31 were for murder and 48 for attempted murder. In addition, two terrorists paid with their lives for their murderous activities, and one has done so up to this point in 1990.
For over 20 years now, those murderers have brought only death and destruction to Northern Ireland and that is all they bring. Hope for a peaceful future is not in their inventory, because they have nothing. They recognise that they have failed at the crucial instrument of democracy, the ballot box, and misguidedly pretend to believe that they can take power through murder, and maiming instead. We will not let that happen. We are determined to eliminate the awful threat that hangs over all the decent people of Northern Ireland.
As long as it is needed, the Army—this includes the UDR as an integral and major element—will continue to play its part in that vital task of maintaining the rule of law. Everyone in the House is keen to see the soldiers off the streets; it is only the terrorists who keep them there.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that it is a fact that Provisional Sinn Fein has remained a minority within a minority, achieving too high a vote as far as I am concerned, but still remaining a minority within the Catholic and Nationalist community in Northern Ireland? As the Provisional IRA claims, however, to carry out what it is doing on behalf of the Irish people as such, is not it appropriate that when I met Mr. Adams and others in September 1983 as part of a parliamentary Labour party Northern Ireland delegation and asked him about where the Provisional IRA's mandate was to carry out its slaughter, he said that there was a mandate, but since then, Provisional Sinn Fein has contested two elections in the Irish Republic and on both occasions has received less than 2 per cent. of the vote? What sort of a mandate from the Irish people can the IRA claim to have?

Mr. Hamilton: That has always amazed and considerably worried me. The IRA has no effect through the ordinary democratic process and feels that the bomb is the only thing left to it. That concerns me. The IRA has no support in any measurable quantity from the people either north or south of the border, which makes its actions even more reprehensible.
In conclusion, the changing international situation gives us the opportunity to maintain our security and sustain our responsibilities with lower force levels, and that means at lower cost, too.
We are sensibly considering the possible options for change in defence taking into account changes in east-west relations, the question of resources and the future size and shape of the armed forces required to meet the future defence of our country. While we are doing that we must ask, "What is Labour doing?"
A fortnight ago, Labour published another policy document, somewhat grandiosely entitled "Looking to the Future"—and what a murky future it foretold. After all the leaks, we had been led to expect a policy document. Instead we found 20,000 words of evasion and generalisation, which was of more interest for what was omitted than what was included. But we know the reason—do we not?
Last year Labour attempted to persuade the country that it had had a change of heart over our nuclear deterrent. It decided that unilateralism was clearly an electoral liability and Labour wanted to persuade the British people that it had dropped it. So what does Labour offer now? Instead of giving Britain's nuclear weapons away on day one, it will now negotiate them away on day two. The means have changed but the result is the same in the end. Britain will have no nuclear weapons and the Soviets will be left with thousands.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) saying recently that, now that he no longer has a party to lead, he might return to the Labour party, as its policies have improved so much. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place—he often attends defence debates. However, I thought that the former leader of the SDP placed great importance on Britain having its own independent nuclear deterrent, and Labour is not offering that.
So I say to the right hon. Gentleman in his absence that there is no point in looking for sensible Conservative policies of market economics and strong defence in the


Labour party. Come to the party that really believes in those things. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will sign him up tomorrow.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I begin by apologising for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes). In last year's debate, mention was made of his illness and we hoped that he would be well enough to open the debate today. Unfortunately, that is not possible, but I understand that his recovery is continuing and we hope that he will return soon. I know that both Opposition and Conservative Members wish to convey their sincere wishes for a complete recovery.
As the Minister said, during the past year the Army has carried out its often difficult tasks in an exemplary manner. Labour Members join the Minister in paying a full tribute to our service people for their dedication to their chosen profession. With the Minister, I congratulate those who have received awards in the past year.
The past year has seen some extraordinary attacks of extreme cowardice on unarmed and unprepared service people and their families, often in their leisure time or on their holidays. Recently, innocent civilians were murdered in a so-called accident in the so-called glorious struggle. We join everyone in the House in condemnation of that and other attacks.
Since last September alone, outside of Northern Ireland, there have been 13 deaths in this country and 13 people have been injured. As the Minister said, seven people have been killed and five injured in Europe. The killings included the grotesque murder of a six-month-old baby. That can never be condoned, and no political aim can justify it.
To lose one's life on duty in an armed confrontation is unfortunately a hazard that is part of a soldier's life, but, outside of that, the completely unacceptable and cowardly way in which terrorists acts are committed add nothing to—indeed, they subtract from—the honour of the cause and of the country involved. In condemning those cowardly acts, we applaud the current talks between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the parties involved. I do not know whether there is any light at the end of that tunnel, but I hope that the talks succeed and that the unwanted division of the most kindly island of Ireland will soon cease.
I congratulate the service people in Northern Ireland who have to submit to the conditions there. In particular, I congratulate the brave members of the bomb disposal unit on the magnificent job that they do and also those in the civilian sector such as ambulancemen, policemen, doctors, nurses and firemen who participate in fighting the horrific problems that arise from the activities of terrorists.
I am glad that the Minister spent some time dealing with security and referred to the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the physical security of military installations. I keep wondering why the Select Committee has to carry out such investigations and highlight certain issues. Why does the Select Committee continually have to point out to the Minister problems which the Government know exist? Only when the scandal of the Committee's reports breaks do the Government decide to do something.
We welcome the changes made and the fact that the Minister spent £126 million last year on enhancing

security. But it is too little and too late. I congratulate all members of the Defence Select Committee on highlighting the alarming state of security and publishing such a powerful report.

Mr. Brazier: All hon. Members share equal anxiety on this matter and fully accept the hon. Gentleman's sincere comments about the hideous outrages that have occurred. However, this is not principally an issue of resourcing. The best way to prevent terrorist outrages is to identify, catch and convict through the courts the villains who perpetrate them. It is sad that we have seen no movement by the Labour Front Bench towards joining not only the Conservative Government but most other parties in the House in supporting the measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. While the measures are certainly not fully effective, at least they provide some of the additional powers needed to identify the villains.

Mr. Rogers: If I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would make that silly point all over again, I would not have given way. It is a silly point. It shows that he does not understand what the issue is all about. The reason why we vote against the Act and why we want it to be reviewed every year is that the measures contained in it are fundamentally against civil liberties.

Mr. Brazier: rose—

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman must listen. He posed a question. We accept—

Mr. Michael Mates: Murder is against civil liberties.

Mr. Rogers: Of course murder is against civil liberties. We say that in the hands of the wrong Government, the measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act could lead us down the wrong alleyway. The reason why we emphasise that, vote against the Act and want it reviewed every year is that we hope that it will be a temporary measure and not a permanent part of the way of life of this country.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the Ministers especially should not scoff. The record of all Governments has not been good on implementing some of the measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Only recently, the courts had to free people who had spent 14 years in gaol after, as it was thought, being brought to book under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. For all the time that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been in force, it has not prevented terrorism. That is probably the greatest indictment of it.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must clarify the Labour party's position. Would it not review the Prevention of Terrorism Act if it came to power?

Mr. Rogers: We shall review all legislation that is extant operated by the present Government. What amazes me about Army and services debate is that, whenever constructive criticism is made, Conservative Members, especially those who spent a couple of years in the Army, wrap themselves in the union jack and say, "What marvellous people we are," and so on. Let us come on to specific resources for physical security and the report of the Defence Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). Let us discuss some of the issues and the penny-pinching of the Government, which has caused the deaths of many people.

Mr. Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: I shall not give way now. I wish to make this point.
One issue highlighted by the Select Committee report was the employment of private security firms. The practice of using such firms has increased under this Government. The Defence Select Committee and the Ministry of Defence police in its submission said that the practice was increasing because the Government were attempting to save money. When 11 Marines were killed in Deal, the firm in charge of security at that barracks was Reliance Security Services. It employed people who had criminal records and people who were badly trained and who were paid about £2 an hour.
That is the Government's real service to the security of our armed forces. Conservative Members may scoff about the Labour party's attitude to security, but they would do better to support the Select Committee's attack on their Government for the lapse of security and the lack of money provided.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rogers: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
The employment of private security companies is simply an extension of the Government's ideological obsession of private is good and public is bad. The desire to save money has led to bad security arrangements in many establishments and perhaps resulted in needless deaths.
We firmly believe that private contracted security companies are not suitable for guarding Ministry of Defence establishments. We believe that private security firm employees lack adequate vetting, initial training, probationary periods and inter-organisation communication and information. The incidence of lax vetting was emphasised last year when it was revealed that a criminal with 500 convictions and a prison record for burglary, arson and violence was employed by the Reliance Security Services—the company employed at the Royal Marines barracks at Deal. I note that Ministers find this funny: obviously they are amused that service men have been killed when off duty and at leisure—

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Rogers: I am not sure what Ministers are doing. One moment they are scoffing and complaining about the Labour party, but when I raise the issue of security all they can do is grin among themselves. We do not want the stress on financial savings to lead to false economies, thus creating a high turnover of private firms, a high failure rate and inadequate service.

Mr. Mates: Our report was carefully worded and it is critical in parts about certain situations the Select Committee found, but nowhere have we said that lives have been put at risk by that. In particular, no reference is made to the incident at Deal, simply because at the time our report went to press we had no report on it. We are awaiting that report and it is important to put that on record.

Mr. Rogers: I accept what the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, but from the evidence submitted it is clear that the company in charge of security at Deal was incompetent and should not have been employed. That evidence was known to the MOD police, and if that

information was available to the Government why did they not act on it? It is worth quoting to the Chairman of the Select Committee what he said in his report about vandalism committed by security guards. He said that it was not an isolated occurence:
that the MOD should not be able instantly to remove the security guards for lack of a viable alternative beggars belief.
I do not believe that there has ever been a more savage criticism of a Government, certainly not since I have been here.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I do not want to prejudge the report on Deal, but, given what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to establish that the private security firm employed at Deal was involved in checking people's cars and those people coming in and out through the entrance to the garrison. In addition, it undertook a number of daytime patrols, but it was not asked to undertake patrols at night. It seems highly likely that the bomb was put in place at night when the garrison was not the responsibility of the private security firm.

Mr. Rogers: I am grateful to the Minister, but I much prefer to leave the savage criticism of the Defence Committee to the House and let it judge the Government's stand.
The Minister began his speech at 5.6 pm and it was a long time before he sat down.

Mr. Conway: He gave way.

Mr. Rogers: In fairness to the Minister, he gave way a remarkable number of times. However, his historical analysis of changes in eastern Europe was claptrap. He stole the clothes of the people. He had not one word of credit for those who went out on the streets in eastern Europe and fought against the dictatorships that they had suffered for so many years. He said that the changes were all due to the Government. He had no word of credit for Mr. Gorbachev. At least Mr. Bush and Mr. Shultz had the decency to give Russia and Mr. Gorbachev credit for what has happened in eastern Europe—something the Minister did not have the decency to do.
The past year has witnessed profound changes politically and militarily in eastern Europe. Some of the arguments in last year's debate on the Army now convey a sense of unreality because of those great changes. The whole basis of strategic thinking and tactical consideration has altered. We are entering a new era which demands new thinking. We need to question fundamentally the role of our armed forces in that changed world. I was surprised that the Minister appeared to say that there would be no change. His remarks about our Army in West Germany and our role in NATO suggest that the Government are not looking to change the role of our armed forces.
We welcome the encouraging progress in the strategic arms reduction talks and the conventional forces in Europe talks. We fully support the call made by President Bush on 8 May to review the conventional and nuclear strategies. We believe that the alliance should take this opportunity finally to jettison the outmoded strategies of flexible response and forward defence. We also applaud the President's decision to cancel the Lance replacement and the modernisation of nuclear shells, especially given the alarming state of some of them.
There is no point repeating the political changes that have taken place about which we are all aware. There is hardly any need to repeat the effect of those changes on


military needs and responses. However, it is worth asking the Government what they propose to do in response to those changes.
The Minister completely missed the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). We now face the sorry sight of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement disagreeing about what to do. We are most interested to learn where the Minister of State for the Armed Forces stands in this quarrel. I presume that he is coming down on the side of the Secretary of State. He is a clever boy, but, in common with his colleague the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, he has probably had to repeat that he, too, is an old friend of the Secretary of State. I must warn the Secretary of State, however, that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had just finished a stint as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the headmistress, and he probably still has a key to her room.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is said to have written a paper that recommended a detailed number of cuts. He suggested a reduction in the number of infantry battalions from 55 to 32—a suggestion to which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham sought to draw attention—an expansion of the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment, and the abandonment of the anti-tank TRIGAT system and the multiple-launch rocket system. Because of that back-door missive, the Secretary of State is supposed to be in a dangerously exposed position. I am sure that he is very uncomfortable, but I am equally sure that his position is unassailable at the moment.
It is clear that there is considerable disagreement within the MOD as well as in Cabinet about how to react to the changing international situation. On the one hand, the Secretary of State argues that we should wait and see. That argument has been advanced in the foreword to the defence estimates—a purely reactive position. On the other hand, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is advocating a policy of cuts that appears to take no account of the new strategic realities or the need to draw up coherent and sensible plans. He appears to be going for a quick peace profit, no doubt to satisfy the Treasury's demand to fund the poll tax in the coming year.
The Secretary of State is, of course, a much wiser and older man—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: He just looks older.

Mr. Rogers: Yes, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman realises that there are substantial costs in many of the changes, particularly in manpower. He also realises that there is no quick peace profit for the poll tax.
The proposals of the Minister of State are of great concern, first because of his good connections with the Prime Minister and secondly because of the content of those proposals. His argument that we must adjust our defence posture to the more likely future conflicts in the third world and the far east seem to indicate that we desire to play a more positive role in those areas. That is an issue of great concern, considering our recent history of colonial involvements and the enormous cost in lives and money of those involvements and withdrawal from them.
It is obvious that, over the coming decade, British military forces in Germany will be cut to dramatically

lower levels, significantly further than the 10 to 15 per cent. reduction envisaged under the CFE treaty, seemingly the basis on which the Minister makes his proposals.
Those cuts will take place not only because of military rationalisation but because of political reality. A new united Germany will almost surely want to be rid of what will increasingly be seen as foreign troops on its soil. It seems ludicrous for the Minister to talk about East Germany not wanting Russian troops on its soil, without even considering that it will be part of a united Germany and that one can presume that, if Russian troops will be asked to get out of the eastern sector of the country, at some stage the West Germans will ask us to withdraw, or substantially lower, our presence there.
According to the argument of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, bringing our forces back to the United Kingdom will be a real option. But it will not be a cheap option. It will be expensive not just in transport costs but in relocation costs, even if barrack facilities, stores and workshops were available. To disband regiments quickly, as has been suggested, would also be an immediately expensive option, with substantial morale and social implications.
We welcome the opportunity that the reductions will provide to cut defence expenditure, but the changes must come about through a process of internationally negotiated and verified disarmament agreements, not by a Minister of State trying to get one over on the Secretary of State and looking for a peace profit to fund the poll tax. It is evident that, as force size is reduced, national forces will no longer be capable of fulfilling all their current roles and that unit costs will increase as the advantages derived from economies of scale are lost. So the Government—I was glad to hear the Minister's remarks on this issue—must commence discussions with our NATO partners on the development of multinational units. On an open basis, Ministers should embark on a full-scale defence review, instead of wasting their energies fighting among themselves over their secretive options for change.
The present size and shape of the British Army is determined largely by the existence of BAOR. If there are to be reductions, impending procurement decisions must. be altered too, for they are related not only to the size of the Army but to the perceived risk on what has hitherto been regarded as the central front.
At a recent Defence Question Time, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement disagreed with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and said that the next battlefield would not necessarily be found in central Europe. The Minister of State has a penchant for making peculiar statements, but it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which British or NATO forces could become involved in the unstable areas of eastern Europe—especially, say, in Romania, Yugoslavia and the Baltic—even as classical peace keeping forces.
The proposition that units brought home from Germany could form a new, highly flexible force, as outlined by the Minister today, poses as many questions as it answers, particularly in considering where they would be used. Even if they were to adopt such a new role, the equipment and weapons that they would require would be different from those now used in a central front tank-based role. The proposition of having an air-mobile, flexible, quick response force, for example, would demand an immediate decision on helicopter procurement, a decision which the Government seem reluctant to make.
The Opposition see the development of a lean, flexible, highly mobile defence force as a valid option for the future. Such a force would be superstructured on a substantial, properly equipped and highly trained reserve Army. It would be available, for example, for United Nations peace keeping duties and to assist in relieving natural disasters wherever they occur. It would always be available to defend our freedoms, democracies and traditions.
All that will not represent a quick fix, and almost certainly it will not be a cheaper option creating immediate huge savings. Savings will come, but not until after reorganisation. The new Army will come about only if some serious issues are addressed now by the Government, the problem of recruitment and retention being the most important, depending in turn on pay and conditions, restoring flagging morale, integrating ethnic minorities and re-identifying the role of women in the services.
The defence estimates again show a net outflow of personnel, with recruitment at 21,348 and an outflow of 24,056, a net loss of 2,608 in the last year. It is rightly said that those personnel represent a valuable investment in training and skills, and that we can ill afford to lose them.
The number of people applying for and taking premature voluntary release is rising again. Each year the Government say that they will introduce new measures, will carry out more surveys and will commission more reports. But still the PVR figures are rising. We appreciate that the problem is difficult, but it is not intractable. Given some of the difficulties that are causing premature voluntary release, the Government are compounding, rather than relieving, the problem, and the so-called wide measures which seek to improve the rate of retention are obviously not working.
I cite the example of service accommodation, about which hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned. According to the Secretary of State, increased funds will be made available for refurbishing service accommodation. The provision of good-quality service accommodation has always been difficult. For that reason, in 1978 the then Labour Government froze the level of accommodation charges, partly out of concern about the quality of accommodation. That concern still exists.
The report in 1988 of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body spoke of how the
accommodation, particularly the single accommodation, is of poor quality, badly maintained, or both.
That body's latest report noted:
Too many personnel will continue to occupy accommodation classed as Grade 4, well below the standard which would be regarded as acceptable in civilian life.
The Government acknowledge in the defence estimates that attention
is being given to the problems that Service personnel face over housing.
Opposition Members have frequently expressed concern about the dreadful quality of some service accommodation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) noted on a visit to Catterick camp that the condition of the houses was horrific. We know that, on 1 April 1989, the backlog of unavoidable repairs to married quarters was costed at £323 million. Perhaps the Minister can tell us about the current backlog of housing repairs. It is fairly obvious that the Government are just about the worst landlords in Great Britain. If any of our local authorities that the

Government love to bash managed their estates in the same way as the Ministry of Defence, the Government would soon push them into court.
Another important issue affecting morale is the ethnic composition of our armed forces, which still does not reflect the ethnic composition of our population. It is a complex problem and will continue to exist as long as the numbers coming into the forces are low. It is only as the numbers increase that the racism that exists in the services will decline.
The Peat Marwick McLintock report to which I referred in the Royal Air Force debate on 28 February said that the poor image of the services on racial issues was the single most important reason for low application rates. I hope that the Government will do more about that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether additional training for recruitment officers will be introduced. Will recruitment advertising be reorganised to present a more positive image of ethnic minorities? Above all, what steps do the Government propose to tackle racism in the services?
Another act of the Government which results in the loss of service personnel is the imposition of the poll tax on members of the armed forces. We have received a tremendous number of complaints. It is another example of the grotesque unfairness of the poll tax. A private soldier on about £7,600 a year will pay the same poll tax as a general on £72,000 a year. Service personnel on the same pay will pay widely differing rates of poll tax depending on where their barracks or married quarters are located. The quartering charges that were payable before 1 April have in many cases gone up more than tenfold. Service personnel in multi-room accommodation will pay the same as officers in single-room accommodation.
No one can tell me that the imposition of the poll tax on the members of our services is fair. Conservative Members have condemned the imposition of this charge on, for example, the Gurkhas. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East pointed to that grossly unfair demand on troops stationed in this country. That unfairness is compounded by the fact that foreign troops do not have to pay, but troops in the British service, even though they do not use many local authority facilities, have to pay the poll tax.
One of the most disturbing events in the past year, certainly for me and for other hon. Members who have a respect for our serving soldiers and who served in the Army, was the publication of the book "The New Model Army" by Michael Yardley and Dennis Sewell, who are former cavalry officers. Their claim of
undeniable symptoms of moral decay
in a system that rewards "ruthless careerism", and tolerates bullying in an organisation that contains
the worst racial bigots in Society
is extremely disturbing. [Interruption.]
Those criticisms are voiced by two former cavalry officers and not by the National Council for Civil Liberties or by someone from the Labour party. The criticisms come from two of the Army's own. I know that Conservative Members will feel vindictive towards those two officers, who have probably voted Tory all their lives, but they should at least listen to what those men have to say. I am not saying that their views are shared by me or any of my hon. Friends.
The two ex-cavalry officers say more philosophically


that the Army is
divorced from the body of the nation … tolerated by the rest of the community either because we do not know what is going on or do not want to know.
Those are matters for debate, but they also accuse the Army of being a professionally competent but often brutalised elite which deliberately keeps aloof from the society it serves, and that is a matter of great concern. I am not quite sure about the motives of the two ex-officers in writing the book, but Conservative Members will applaud me when I say that I do not go along with their prescription for what they call a new model army.
The two ex-officers have come up with the idea of voluntary national service
to keep youngsters off the dole queue
in order to relate the Army more to the community that it serves. That would be accompanied by a home defence force, the members of which would keep their weapons and ammunition at home. That is said to be
not dissimilar to the rifle volunteers of the late Victorian era.
I know that that will strike a chord with the Prime Minister, but it fills me and my hon. Friends with great alarm.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman earlier praised the Army for its proficiency, and he included other ingredients that made it what he thought was a thoroughly commendable institution. Does he agree with the criticisms that he has just read to the

Mr. Rogers: My experience of the Army goes back some 30 years, so I have to admit that perhaps in this context I am out of touch with the Army as it exists now. As I have said, these were comments not by the NCCL but by ex-cavalry officers. I understand that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) served as a captain in the Army. He is aware of the structure of the Army and the elitism that exists within it. I should have thought that some of the criticisms are justified. Without saying whether I agree with them, I have to say that I am worried that they have been made. I am also concerned about the wall of silence surrounding the book. The Government have made no comment on it since it was published in September, and that is a little disturbing.
Many procurement issues are linked to the inevitable decline in the number of people in our Regular Army. One of the most important decisions will be that about the Challenger 2 tank. Its procurement will have to be critically examined, because it will reach its third milestone test in September, which is just 12 weeks away. The examination should be most urgent. I hope that the Government are aware of the severe economic and industrial consequences on the areas concerned that will flow from their decision. I hope that they will firmly consider the Challenger 2 over and above tanks from any other country.
Another procurement decision that causes concern relates to the third-generation anti-tank guided weapons system, the TRIGAT family. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is to happen about that. It seems that the future of the programme is in doubt, first on the ground that it may not have the ability or the capacity to penetrate some of the new types of armour that have been developed, and secondly, I understand, on the ground that the premise of great tank battles is no longer valid. There is no up-to-date

information about how the project is faring in meeting its milestones, or even what targets have been set. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that.
Another uncertainty in procurement is the future requirement for military helicopters, including those for the Army. Originally, the need for greater air mobility was seen as a response to a specific Warsaw pact threat in central Europe and there was a widespread perception that this would require more and better helicopters for the Army. This threat has disappeared, but the case for air mobility and more helicopters is being presented as a response to the new situation—the development of a flexible, mobile Army. Perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of what the Government intend to do about helicopter equipment for all the forces.
As I said at the outset, change has been thrust upon us by the momentous events in eastern Europe. Change can take place in different ways—in a purely reactive manner, waiting for events to pressure the changes, a la the Secretary of State, or in a simplistic way, by drawing up a list, a la the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. It can also take place in a reasonable, structured and orderly fashion, attempting to maintain morale, to retain manpower, and to ease job and company losses in critical procurement sectors. The Opposition would choose that latter option. The sooner the Government get out and let us take the decisions on the country's defence, the better.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches will operate from 7 o'clock.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a number of interesting points, some of which we can only profoundly disagree with. I am tempted to follow him down some of the paths that he has trodden so delicately, but I fear that I should outstay my welcome if I did, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I have a number of points that I wish to make on my own account. However, I was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not expect any quick fix to the problems of defence or any quick peace dividend. I hope that that message will go as loud and clear from the Opposition Benches as it has from the Government Benches. It is important that the public understand this.
We all know that my right hon. and hon. Friends with responsibility for defence have a most difficult task. They have to determine how far it would be wise to reduce expenditure on defence or to reduce the size of the armed forces in a period of uncertainty and instability, as my hon. Friend the Minister called it. They must be seen to respond to the promising developments in eastern Europe, while still protecting the essential fabric and integrity of the armed forces. They must be aware that prudence will no doubt be denounced by people impatient for what they call a peace dividend. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke as he did. They will be challenged by others to justify the continued existence of the NATO alliance. However, I am confident that, in laying their plans for the future, the Government—I hope that the Opposition will go along with them on this—will recognise that, at this time and for the foreseeable future,


to call for the demise of NATO would be short-sighted, unrealistic and ultimately damaging to the long-term cause of peace and stability.
If hon. Members think that that is going too far, let me remind them of the recent debate in plenary session of the North Atlantic Assembly, when delegates from 16 countries discussed the future of the alliance. There was overwhelming support—which embraced all sections of major political parties in western Europe—for a resolution stating that membership of a united Germany in NATO was essential for security in Europe. The German delegation agreed that Germany could not be neutral. It was led by one of Germany's senior spokesmen on defence matters, from the SDP.
Secondly, the resolution asserted that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has an indispensable role to play in Europe which should not be thought of as a substitute for the alliance, which remains essential to western security. Thirdly, the resolution advocated an enhanced political role in NATO in view of the decline of the military threat. We warmly support that. Fourthly, it called for the creation of a true European pillar within the alliance. Fifthly, it urged the assembly to establish ties with eastern European Parliaments and to contribute to the building of democracy. It also agreed on the necessity to have a north American presence. That is a substantial agenda for an organisation that has helped to preserve the peace of the world.

Mr. Tony Banks: The North Atlantic Assembly is bound to pass such a resolution. The desire for a united Germany in NATO might have been expressed by the representatives of the Federal Republic at the Assembly, but, according to the latest opinion polls in both East and West Germany, that is not the opinion of the German people, who would like a demilitarised zone around their country, with the withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he misunderstands the purpose of the North Atlantic Assembly. It is not composed of paid officials or of people who subscribe to the views of NATO. It is composed freely of representatives of the Parliaments who come there and debate solidly. All kinds of criticisms fly around, but it would be unwise of the hon. Gentleman to dismiss with contumely what I have said. The Government of the Federal Republic strongly believe in a united Germany and that that united Germany should be part of NATO. I regard the views expressed by Chancellor Kohl as carrying far more weight than the public opinion polls mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The German people are the very people who supported his idea for unity, knowing very well for what it is that he is asking.
We all know that there is room for manoeuvre and debate—we have all heard my hon. Friend the Minister—in respect of East Germany and what, when it becomes part of a united Germany, should be the position of the troops of the Warsaw pact, of the Soviet Union and NATO. That is a strong view. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, he should agree that a wide number of issues demand the continued presence of NATO. The hon. Gentleman should welcome rather than deplore the agenda that I set out.
We should not forget that one of the great benefits of NATO is that it is the only defence organisation in the world that has the integrated military structure, the resources and plans to enable it to take the prompt action necessary to protect the security of the nations that belong to it and, if necessary, the security of Europe as a whole. To dismantle it at this time in our history would undo all the progress that we have made in the past 40 years. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear little from Opposition Members, and certainly not from those on the Front Bench—I am glad to have the nodding head of agreement from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)—about dismantling NATO in the foreseeable future. At least there is one voice of agreement there, and we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman when he winds up for the Opposition.
I recognise that NATO will have to change as events develop. No one should say that it should be frozen as events were frozen during the cold war. If, as seems inevitable, nations move to smaller forces, this should increase the incentive to produce a more rational defence effort through such innovations as role specialisation. I understand that it is ludicrously expensive for nations to cover the gamut of their defence needs. They have to co-operate more closely with other nations. Therefore, in their options for change, I hope that the Government will develop their own ideas for a more effective distribution of roles and missions within the alliance.
My hon. Friend the Minister has already spoken about the formation of multinational units, and I am glad that he took such a positive approach to this. As he knows, NATO's integrated command structure is integrated not only at headquarters level but down to Army level. The creation of a multinational corps comprising several national divisions would, in my view, be practical. As is recognised by most people on both sides of the argument—it was certainly recognised by the hon. Member for Rhondda—too many reductions would mean a not very practicable force. The United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force provides us with a good model on which to base any further expansion.
When restructuring our forces, we should above all avoid making short-term salami cuts for the sake of economy. That would pose a danger that has caused chronic problems in most other countries that have faced the same difficulties. Such economies usually prove expensive in the long run: they demoralise the armed forces, and leave them thoroughly ill balanced and incapable of fulfilling any military role. The result is a shambles.
The Army has had to face some pretty drastic changes in the past. In 1957, when conscription ended, it became an all-volunteer force, relying on the Territorial Army for further expansion. It weathered the storm, but the 1960s and 1970s brought both amalgamations and disbandments. When the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), was a Back Bencher, he and I would carry into the House ballot box after ballot box loaded with requests for us to save the Argylls. Thank goodness we had the sense to do so. We do not want to go through that again if we can help it.
During the past 33 years—since the end of conscription—our all-volunteer Army has served us well. It has, on the whole, been well equipped and exceedingly well led, and its soldiers have attained the highest professional standards.
A criticism by two officers was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda; I do not know how an army with such a background could achieve the reputation that our Army has achieved, not only in this country but worldwide. The nation has every right to be proud of its bearing, and greatful for what it has done. We simply cannot afford to destroy the best of what we have built. Events may require a smaller Army, but it must nevertheless be capable of sustaining its skills.
Let me seek two specific assurances from the Government. The first concerns the best use of a demographically shrinking and increasingly valuable commodity—manpower and womanpower. The second concerns the need to prevent short-term financial measures from causing irreparable damage to defence research and development. Such programmes increasingly underpin the fighting capabilities of our armed forces. Their morale must not be harmed; they should have well-defined roles, and be capable of rapid expansion from a firm and stable base should conditions for preserving the peace deteriorate.
If all that is to be done, as economically as possible, our smaller Regular Army will depend more than ever on a rapid reinforcement capability, provided by a well trained and well equipped Territorial Army. I hope that the Ministers have considered the concept of integrating regular and TA units. They may also have considered providing more support units for the Regular Army from the TA. Such measures may help us to avoid having to disband overstretched regiments, with all the attendant pain, anguish and damage to Army traditions that we experienced in the 1960s and 1970s.
We must, of course, look to the Government to provide the necessary financial incentives for the TA and the reserve forces, but I believe that a trade-off will be possible. There will be a greater proportion of troops in the front-line combat formations in a smaller Regular Army, ready at short notice to carry out peacekeeping roles and to cope with emergencies before they escalate. A reduction in the Army's presence in Europe could lead to a recognition that we can play a stabilising and peacekeeping role in some areas outside Europe, along with our European allies. Unlike other hon. Members, I am thinking less of eastern Europe than of places perhaps more significant to our national interests: I have in mind the threats posed from the Gulf, the middle east and north Africa. Thinking along such lines could lead to important changes in the equipment and roles of our armed forces.
As I have said, my second point concerns research and development. The days when British forces kept the peace, or skirmished with lightly armed but intrepid fuzzy-wuzzies, are, of course, long past. Not so long ago—between the two world wars—we allowed not only the manpower of our army, but the quality and modernity of its equipment, to decline. The dismal result has been that, too often in our history, our men have had to fight using the weapons, tactics and ideas of a previous war.
Today—leaving aside the strength and quality of the Soviet armed forces, which will clearly remain prodigious for some time—quite minor powers are extremely well equipped, possessing superior, sophisticated conventional electronic equipment, chemical warfare weapons and ballistic missiles. In the not too distant future, we shall witness the application of artificial intelligence systems on the battlefield.
No doubt the Treasury has already fixed its jaundiced eye on the £450 million spent on research by the Ministry of Defence. We should accept that modern armies may not always have the gold-plated equipment that they so often desire, but R and D is the seedcorn: if I may change my metaphor, it cannot be switched on and off. Its future demands the most careful planning, not only for our Army's sake but for the sake of our defence-based industries. I hope that I shall not be accused of taking advantage of my connection with MEL, a defence subsidiary of Philips.
In today's more technical world, a smaller army will depend more than ever on the right scientific and technical back-up and will require its skills to be tested continually by the fruits of research. If Ministers must deny the Army the production orders that it seeks, I ask them to stand firm on the need for development—at least up to prototype stage—and for the technical demonstration tests that can do so much to decide whether a piece of equipment should be ordered.
If the Government adopt such measures, should technical innovation threaten the balance and efficiency of our forces or a new threat loom on the horizon, we shall be able to retain in the United Kingdom—or in conjunction with our NATO allies—a sound base on which to expand and meet the new conditions. I wish my right hon. Friends every success in their endeavour.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the past year, single-service debates have given us the opportunity to consider some rather wider issues—as was eloquently demonstrated in the tour d'horizon with which the Minister favoured the House. The theme of his remarks was change, and the need for its acceptance—a prospect that perhaps bears more accurately on the Army than on the other two services.
The changes in Europe will undoubtedly result in a reduction in the British Army of the Rhine; undoubtedly, the purpose for much of our Army procurement and deployment will be overtaken by the substantial political and, subsequently, military changes that have occurred in Europe, especially in the past 12 months. If we are to have more mobile and flexible forces—forces that are leaner and meaner—the great debate about tanks versus helicopters will have to reach some conclusion.
Perhaps that conclusion will be provoked by the arrival of September, when we shall reach an important staging post in the determination of which tank is to be favoured. Perhaps, however, a more fundamental and radical question should be whether we should consider replacing the tank at all. That is one of the important issues that are undoubtedly being considered in connection with the options for change, to which I shall return shortly.
The much publicised desire of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to get £1 billion out of the defence budget is the wrong way to approach the changing landscape presented by defence issues. Would not the proper way be to assess the nature of the threat, determine the means necessary to meet it and then to budget to provide those means? Whether it is the Chief Secretary trying to get £1 billion off the defence budget or the annual conference of the Labour party voting to take £5 billion off it, each is as flawed as the other.
Approaching the issue from a budgetary viewpoint may result in precisely the sort of defects to which the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) eloquently referred. It was notable that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) placed great stress on the criticism of the options for change. That criticism would have had more force had it contained some recanting of the decision taken by the annual conference of the Labour party last September.
If the nature of the threat has changed, and if the threat is reduced—which is generally accepted—there appears to be a more widespread acceptance in the House that there is no guarantee that there will be an immediate financial dividend. If there is to be a meaner and leaner force, we shall be looking for better equipment and conditions. If we are endeavouring to meet the demands of the demographic trough, with the forces trying to attract people of the right calibre, good conditions—not just of housing, but of holidays and pay—will be important factors. The forces will have to be better trained, which will be relatively more expensive than it is now.
Those who claim that there is an immediate peace dividend and that money can be swapped from one column to another—that it can be spent on health, education or other areas thought to be more socially desirable—fail to address the considerable financial consequences that will undoubtedly follow the necessary restructuring of the forces.
I cannot understand why the Government will not embark upon a full-scale defence review, especially as NATO is about to embark upon such a review, in which the issues of flexible response and forward defence will be up for debate. During the next month or so, consideration will be given to whether to adopt a policy of no first use for nuclear weapons. Those would be fundamental changes in NATO's doctrine. Why, then, are the Government so reluctant to embark upon a parallel examination of the United Kingdom position through a full-scale defence review?
I do not doubt that, in the foreseeable future, the need for NATO will remain. I understand the aspirations of those who wish for a different architecture for the security of Europe to be created through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. However, we must remember that that organisation, as currently constituted, has certain inherent defects. For example, it operates only if there is unanimity. It includes such great military powers as San Marino. In its present form, it is not qualified for the sort of tasks that many people wish it to undertake. Unless and until it becomes so qualified, NATO will have to remain, although not necessarily in its present form, with its present priorities and subject to its present doctrines. It is essential that NATO maintains a unanimity of purpose. It is essential that, as far as possible, we ensure that the 16 countries of NATO stay together in a unanimity of purpose on how security can best be maintained.
During the past two or three days, Mr. Gorbachev has been at pains to argue that we should not use the language of winners and losers in relation to NATO and the Warsaw treaty organisations. One could say, "He would, wouldn't he?" His organisation has collapsed; it is NATO that has been sustained. It is hardly surprising that he would like to devaluate NATO and to suggest that its

purpose has been achieved. There is no sensible option for the long-term security of Europe other than that a united Germany should remain in NATO.
There may be scope for imaginative protocols and arrangements that deal with the necessary steps to allay the apprehension and concern of the Soviet Union. In that, we may balance the question of how much we should give to ensure that Mr. Gorbachev does not come under unreasonable pressure. There are all sorts of sophisticated judgments to be made, but central to them and the basis on which they can properly be made is the general acceptance that a unified Germany within NATO will provide a keystone to the future security of Europe.
The issues that we are discussing should be the subject of a more open debate, as they are in the United States. Indeed, the defence periodicals from America tell us much about the Government's policies to which we do not have access in this country. There is a much publicised memorandum from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I think that many of the assumptions in that memorandum are deeply flawed and I should like to offer my assistance to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I believe that common sense would be sufficient to persuade the Minister that there are flaws in his memorandum. As a precursor to the annual debate on the defence estimates, I suggest that that much-publicised memorandum be placed in the Library, where we can all see it. It could then form the basis of an intelligent exchange of views so that we can all share in the thinking of Defence Ministers.
We are discussing extremely important issues that change their character almost daily. Many of the decisions that will be made in the United Kingdom during the next six to 12 months will have far-reaching consequences. That being so, they should be made against the background of an informed, constructive and, if necessary, noisy debate about where the best interests of the United Kingdom lie. In the resolution of these issues, there is little doubt that the British Army will continue to play an important role. I join others in paying tribute to its achievements, not least in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michael Mates: Because it is such a rare event, I must be careful not to be too enthusiastic in agreeing with one part of what was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I very much agree with what he said about the unfairness of the community charge on service men in general and on Ghurkas in particular. The Ghurkas are my constituents and my objections are well known and well publicised. I do not say that simply to criticise the Government. I hope that I am being constructive, because I know that it was not the wish of the Ministry of Defence. Unfortunately, the argument with the Department of the Environment and the Treasury was lost and, rightly, Defence Ministers must now live with that collective decision. However, as there is now a review of the community charge, I very much hope that, as a result of the debate and because of what I and my hon. Friends have said both publicly and privately, this matter will be put before it.
Unlike some of the other measures which seem to be needed for the community charge, this costs nothing and it will put right an injustice which has been strongly felt within the armed services, whose personnel are unique in


that they cannot choose where to live and, as a result of the circumstances in which they find their posting, are forced to pay the community charge. We should go back to an average share, which is what they paid under the old rating system, and which would be seen to be fair. Of course they must contribute, but a soldier may have a £500 fine attached to his posting which he cannot choose and that is seen as genuinely unfair. I hope that the Ministry will put that matter into the melting pot of discussions that are taking place at the moment.
Since we last had a service debate, the Select Committee has lost one of its members. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has left as result of his resigning the Labour Whip. Much as I deeply resent the personal attacks that he has made on me behind my back and to the press in articles which are patently untrue and which are the subject of a complaint to the Press Council, it would be churlish of me not to record his valuable service during six years on the Committee, where his experience and expertise and the diligence with which he carried out his duties have been much appreciated by all his colleagues on both sides of the Committee. We are sorry to see him go.
We welcome in the hon. Member's place the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I hope that he will be happy serving with us. He maintains the 75 per cent. of Scots on the Opposition side of the Committee, for reasons which are best known to the Labour party, and which I would not try to analyse. I think that the sole English Labour Member had hoped for a little reinforcement, but I have no doubt that he will be happy with what he has got.
I must make brief remarks about the sixth report of the Committee on the fiscal security of military installations in the United Kingdom. Much has been said of the terrorist threat and I do not need to go over the background, but it was in the light of the enhanced threat and, most particularly, following the explosion at the Royal Marines school of music at Deal on 22 September 1989 in which I I bandsmen were killed, that the Committee decided to follow up the report which the previous Committee had made in 1984. That report had concentrated on the future security arrangements for the royal ordnance factories and on the threat to the security of nuclear bases arising from protesters at that time which, thankfully, has now passed.
We devoted 20 paragraphs of our report to the security arrangements at royal ordnance factories, now under private ownership. We are not wholly satisfied with what we found. We doubt whether the Ministry of Defence was acting quite straightforwardly in 1988 in permitting MOD police to be replaced at Blackburn and Birtley by commercial security guards. We do not criticise the replacement of MOD police at Westcott and Bishopton by the new Royal Ordnance plc guard force, but we are anxious that the Ministry of Defence should take steps to remove the impression that the level of security has been lowered and that the Department should continue to take a close and informed interest in royal ordnance security arrangements.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mates: The 10-minute rule is in operation, but I shall give way.

Dr. Godman: In paragraph 75 of the report, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues talk about the need to monitor the quality of the police force at Bishopton. How would that monitoring take place?

Mr. Mates: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman at length now. I am sorry to be restricted in my remarks. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has heard what he said, and it is his job to do exactly that. If I may go on to answer some of the other recommendations that we have made, I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman.
That interest also applies to the other five royal ordnance factories, where both the Ministry and the police forces involved seek the continuation of an MOD police presence alongside a company guard force. Royal Ordnance has restricted the extra costs—around £1·2 million a year—which that would involve, but British Aerospace was well aware of the special position of MOD police at royal ordnance factories when it purchased the company. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that a proper solution has now been found to the question of security arrangements at royal ordnance factories and that the company has accepted the expert advice of the Ministry of Defence and local police officers.
However, our major concern is with the growing use by the Ministry of Defence of commercial security companies. So far as we were able to publish them, the facts are set out in the report. About 56 sites are commercially guarded, at an annual cost of about £5 million. That is not a major financial commitment, and the vast majority of MOD and service sites are not commercially guarded. It is important to keep the matter in perspective. Commercial guarding is primarily used to release service personnel for other tasks. As we say in the report,
It is a fundamental part of the duties of service personnel to protect themselves and their bases.
That must not be overlooked.
However, such guarding duties mean that service personnel are not free to carry out other tasks for which they are trained. That makes the use of commercial security firms attractive. There are alternatives to replacing or supplementing service men with commercial security firms. Ministry of Defence police, who have full police powers and training, are already stretched and are expensive. The Royal Air Force has its own police force, over 3,000 strong. But the main policy choice lies between an expanded MOD civilian guard force and the wider use of contractors.
From our examination of the experience which the services and the MOD have had with commercial security companies and of the screening by such companies of potential employees, we cannot accept that further contracts should be awarded for commercial security guarding. As for existing contracts, many are apparently being satisfactorily performed, and the service directors of security showed no desire to lose the services of the companies concerned.
We would like tougher enforcement by the MOD of contractual sanctions against those companies which have not come up to scratch. At the moment, it seems that unsatisfactory levels of performance are tolerated for far too long because termination would leave a site unguarded. We recommend a searching review during the next few years of the security implications of using


commercial guards at every site where they are used and that consideration be given in every case to the possibility of replacement by an MOD guard force.
At the moment, the Ministry of Defence is getting what it pays for, no more and no less. In some cases it is a second-rate service and so a potentially dangerous one. Either it must spend more on getting a better service or provide it itself through direct employment of a guard force. As a politician and a former soldier, all my instincts point to the latter as the more sensible course of action.
I had hoped to make a few remarks on my own account about the wider scene as it affects the Army, but this is the first time that I have been caught by the 10-minute rule while having to speak on behalf of my Committee, to which I thought my first duty lay. Therefore, I shall simply say one thing.
A robust debate is going on inside and outside the Ministry of Defence about the options for the future, and that is right. I know, perhaps more than most at the moment, that everything that one reads in the newspaper about oneself is not true, and I am sure that that also applies to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He has always had robust views on defence, some of which I have agreed with and some of which I have not, but all of which I have always enjoyed debating with him.
I advise one word of caution to everybody everywhere, inside and outside the House, when we are discussing the future structure of our services: do not let us forget or put in jeopardy the most precious asset that those services have—the men and women who serve in them. It is in that regard that talk of numbers, of battalions, of ships, of specific reductions long before we have had a chance maturely to decide what the residual threat is, if any, and where it is likely to occur, is putting the cart before the horse.
I am not alleging that my hon. Friend's remarks in that regard were correctly quoted: I make no comment about that, because I do not know. However, it behoves all of us to conduct the debate in a rational way, and that means to look at what is the residual threat, what it is that we shall need, the sort of way in which we must approach the matter and what the new NATO will look like. Then and only then should we start talking about numbers, places and people. To allow our service men to continue to operate in that area of uncertainty is bad for their morale, and bad for us as responsible people conducting this debate, and it serves nobody's interests.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I want to argue this evening in favour of a radical review of, and eventually a radical reduction in, the defence budget and in NATO's overall defence budget. Now that the era of east-west confrontation is drawing to a close, we have a golden opportunity to begin to realise what has been referred to as the peace dividend. I take on board the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that it will be difficult to realise that dividend—which is why I go further than some of my hon. Friends might wish to go, and further than my party has gone in its latest policy document, "Looking to the Future".
The inevitable consequence of the radical reduction in defence spending now in prospect, combined with the increasing costs of military technology and development, is that the days of national armies in Europe are fast drawing to a close. Political logic and hard economics point to a future in which multinational armies will be trained and deployed together, use the same equipment, follow the same procedures and doctrines, and serve together as a single collective defence force.
In Europe, the natural focus for such a multinational defence force is the European Community. The long-term consequence—and by the long term, I mean the end of this decade or the beginning of the next century—of the ending of the cold war in Europe will be the establishment of what will be to all intents and purposes a European Community army backed up, as it must be, by common Community defence and foreign policy.
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the officers and men of the various regiments of the Army and the Army Air Corps who played host to three parliamentary colleagues and myself over the past year, when we participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The insight that I gained from that experience into the day-to-day workings and conditions of service men has proved invaluable. It certainly confirmed my admiration for the Army's high standards of professionalism and service. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for organising that scheme, and to the Minister and his officials at the Ministry of Defence, who helped the scheme along.
One strong impression that I gained from participating in that scheme was the huge impact of the poll tax on service men and the resentment that that is causing. Soldiers are experiencing the inequity and raw injustice of the poll tax in perhaps its starkest form. It is impossible to defend a situation in which a private soldier is expected to pay the same poll tax as a general. The Government will pay a high political price for that among many of their traditional supporters in the armed services.
Last month, I organised, together with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), the first ever east-west conference of young elected politicians from almost all the countries of east, west and central Europe—including members of the USSR Supreme Soviet and politicians from north America. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces kindly attended and addressed that conference.
It was a great delight to spend time in the company of those young parliamentarians from the new democracies of eastern and central Europe. No one could do so without realising that the basic assumptions that previously underpinned British defence policy—based on the cold war and on confrontation between east and west—have collapsed. The great need now is to build a new policy on new foundations, based on a radical and searching review of our future defence requirements.
Everyone recognises the need for that—except, apparently, the British Government. Articles appear daily on that subject, and no intelligent debate on the armed forces could possibly take place without at least the outline of a fundamental defence review being sketched out—yet we are forced to conduct tonight's debate in a vacuum because of the Government's continuing and bizarre refusal even to acknowledge the need for such a review.
It is ironic that no country of the west needs the peace dividend more than the United Kingdom, because of its


traditionally high defence expenditure, yet no Government appears more reluctant to grasp that dividend than the present British Government. The strain on Britain's resources of sustaining a cold war military commitment over the past 40 years has been immense. In fact, it has been crippling. The cuckoo in the nest of our defence budgets has been our commitment to the central front. The cold war is over, the Warsaw pact is finished, and the USSR by itself no longer presents a realistic military threat to the west. Now is the time to begin to cast off our crippling burden of defence expenditure.
The Government plead the case for caution, yet other countries are forging ahead. The forthcoming United States defence budget will incorporate substantial cuts, and West Germany has announced a prospective reduction in its armed forces of almost 20 per cent. Those Governments recognise that, although there are worries surrounding the chaotic collapse of the Soviet empire, those worries are more for the Soviet peoples themselves than a realistic military danger to us.
As Jonathan Dean, the former United States ambassador to the MBFR talks recently argued, a 50 per cent. cut in NATO equipment and personnel over the next decade could realise defence budget savings of up to 30 per cent.—about $100 billion across NATO as a whole at today's prices. It is surely madness to tie up that money in arms and weapons one day longer than necessary when there are other, more urgent priorities to be met—particularly environmental priorities.
We ought to begin now the long-term withdrawal of the British Army of the Rhine as such and of RAF Germany from the central region. If British soldiers remain on the European continent into the next century, they should so so as part of a genuine European multinational force supported primarily out of Community funds. In that way, we could ensure that the future burden would be equally shared instead of falling disproportionately upon British taxpayers, as it has in the past.
That returns me to the need for closer European Community co-operation on defence. Even with today's inflated defence budgets, it is increasingly uneconomic for the nation states of western Europe to fulfil their procurement needs independently. It makes more and more sense to collaborate and procure jointly. At a time when defence budget cuts of 30 to 50 per cent. are being contemplated, individual national procurement policies will become simply impossible.
I realise that I am going further than my party's official policy and the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I believe that we need to enter in the future into an intimate collaboration of Community nations in both the procurement of weapons and the actual deployment of forces—including a possible single Community army. That will inevitably entail the convergence of national defence and foreign policies in Europe into a single Community policy. Such developments are not only inevitable because of the new context created by the ending of the cold war, and by the hard economic constraints that will be the direct consequence of major defence cuts, but are to he welcomed.

Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will forgive me if I do not follow him too much, save to comment that

I disagree profoundly with the proposition that he put forward. I disagree with it almost as profoundly as I suspect and hope that members of the Labour Front Bench disagree with it. Unilateral cuts of the magnitude suggested by the hon. Member for Western Isles would be catastrophic for our own defence posture and for that of NATO. We have had success in MBFR, and the START talks have offered considerable possibilities all the way through because we maintain a sensible and strong defence posture. I was gladdened that that was substantially on the basis of cross-party agreement. I suspect that views of the type expressed by the hon. Member for Western Isles are being increasingly adopted by Labour, which will cause it to be regarded with great suspicion, and rightly so, by the electorate generally.
I commend the fact that we are having this single-service debate. I was profoundly sceptical about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, with the abolition of single-service Ministers, because it seemed to be appropriate that there should be a Minister answerable in this place for each of the services. Those of us who did not like the reorganisation were reassured that there would be a single-service debate homing in on each of the three services—Navy, Army and Air Force—so that matters of relative detail could be aired on the Floor of the House from time to time, in the way that they ought to be aired.
I have the privilege of representing a substantial part of a garrison town—Colchester—which I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham). I am proud to represent that constituency, which contains such a strong military element. During the quarter of a century and more that I have had the pleasure to represent the area, I have received nothing but kindness from the military, which is exemplified by the fact that I was dined out by the military corrective training centre just before my recent marriage. I was given a party at the centre and they strongly advised that I stay under custody for the evening because they had every intention of getting me above the level of 80 mg per 100 ml. I think they only marginally succeeded, but it was an interesting place to spend a couple of nights before one's wedding.
Speaking more seriously, the military corrective training centre is a splendid organisation. One of the triumphs of the Government is that the centre has been rebuilt. When I first became the Member of Parliament for Colchester, the centre was in tin nissen huts. It was the last military establishment in such huts. For years I campaigned for it to be rebuilt, and at last we got it. The former Secretary of State, my right hon Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), opened the centre a couple of years ago and it was a splendid occasion.
I pay tribute to the work that the centre does. Considerable lessons are to be learnt by civilian prisons from the way in which it is organised. The centre has of course the advantage that all the soldiers under sentence are young and that there is a high ratio of soldiers under sentence to staff. My hon. Friends who are worried about the organisation of prisons should make an in-depth visit to the military corrective training centre, because there is much to be learned there.
It is a great privilege to represent Colchester, North. I have also been privileged to visit armed forces in all parts of the globe, wherever they serve. Some years ago I visited the Falklands as I led the first parliamentary delegation to the islands after the confrontation with the Argentinians.


I sought to go there on the task force, because there have always been parliamentarians actively involved where troops were in action. My father was in the 1914–18 war and he said that he could not understand a sudden disturbance in the trenches—it was a visit of parliamentarians in 1918.
The Whips prevented me from going on the task force because of the open-ended commitment that would be involved by my going there. None the less I had the privilege to visit the islands, leading the first parliamentary delegation after the confrontation.
The major lesson to be learned from the Falklands conflict is that it gave credibility to the whole of our western defence policy if the tough men of the Politburo were questioning whether "these so-and-so democracies" would ever do anything for democracy—would they just pass resolutions in the United Nations? We went to that massive expenditure of treasure and blood to defend the right of 1,800 people, mainly of British decent, to live in freedom. That demonstrated the western world's resolve, and also the sheer professionalism of our armed forces.
Let us remember our armed forces in the remoter parts of the world. I have also had the privilege of going to Belize. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will mention some of those areas which are outside NATO in his winding-up speech. We have a battalion and some Harriers in Belize. They maintain stability in the area and it is universally accepted that their presence helps to maintain peace there. Having visited the country, I realise that it also gives additional expertise to the armed forces, which have the opportunity to train in the different circumstances there.
The main burden of our armed forces is to maintain peace in Northern Ireland and our commitment to the British Army of the Rhine. I have always been sceptical whether we need a commitment of 55,000 troops to the British Army of the Rhine, and I remain sceptical. As long as there is a substantial commitment to the central European front, that is what is needed. We should not think that there would be immediate savings if we brought some of those market forces home. There would in fact be an immediate increase in the amount of money required because of the necessary refurbishment of barracks here and of re-equipment and the reinstallation of troops on the home front. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will mention the numbers of troops in the British Army of the Rhine.
One of the key issues for our defence forces and our defence posture is the maintenance of our links with the United States of America. I hope that a word may be said about the reciprocal arrangements with the American armed forces, because the link is very important. In any debate on defence we ought to pay tribute to the United States' commitment. It is remarkable that our allies in the United States maintain such a substantial number of troops in Europe. That should be acknowledged. The decoupling of the USA from the NATO alliance would be devastating to it.
I am constrained by the time limit imposed upon us in this debate and shall end as I began, by paying tribute to our armed forces. We are privileged that we have the opportunity to debate their affairs and to pay tribute to their professionalism and courage, and to the marvelous

support that they get from their families. Service in Northern Ireland and elsewhere places a great strain on their families. I like the way in which the armed forces always talk about "married families"—presumably as opposed to the others, the unmarried ones. That is a historic remnant. We are lucky in the professionalism of our armed forces and in the support that troops get from their families, not only in Colchester but throughout the United Kingdom. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I recognise that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I am obliged to confine my remarks to that aspect of Army operations that I know best and with which I have been so closely associated, directly and indirectly, for the past 20 years: the internal security of this kingdom in the face of terrorism, especially the Provisional IRA.
Sadly, it has become almost routine for Ministers to have to address the House about casualties inflicted on the Army as it performs its onerous responsibilities, placing itself between the terrorists and the law-abiding civilian community in Northern Ireland, Britain and Europe. It is a role that our soldiers have carried out in the most difficult circumstances with a self-restraint which sets them apart from probably any other Army in the world. On behalf of my party, I acknowledge with gratitude the sacrifice that our serving men and women continue to make.
Early in the report by the Select Committee on Defence, "The Physical Security of Military Installations in the United Kingdom", the point is made that there is ever a choice to be made between security and value for money. I am realistic enough to appreciate that. However, I wonder how one measures value for money in terms of lives of our troops or ultimately our civilian population.
I must pose a question—is it Government policy to tackle terrorism in a proactive or a reactive manner? My experience has been that the latter is the case and that the Government, not in a premeditated manner, but de facto, pursue an "acceptable level of violence" policy for purely fiscal reasons. That caution is paid for in innocent lives and provides the terrorist with the time and opportunity to alter his tactics. Thus the element of surprise is a constant weapon in the armoury of the terrorist. Surely, with the easing of tension between east and west in Europe, we should be seeing more of our military resources channelled towards resolving the grave internal security problem with which we have wrestled for so long.
Has the Minister looked carefully at the constraints placed on the operational needs of our troops in Northern Ireland as a result of the dearth of adequate helicopter hours? Will he concede that more of the considerable resources presently based in Germany could be better deployed to give operational flexibility in Northern Ireland? If he considers the recent deaths of four members of an Ulster Defence Regiment patrol as they travelled in a Land-Rover, he will fully understand that point.
Operational commanders are often frustrated in their efforts to pre-empt and pursue terrorists because of logistical difficulties. Helicopters are extremely expensive, but they are no more expensive flying in Northern Ireland than in Germany. I do not want to labour the point further, except to say that I have yet to meet a battalion


commander who does not feel that he is operationally inhibited and that his men are forced to endure too many avoidable risks because of the lack of that resource.
On the UDR, how pleased I was to read the Stevens report on the leaks inquiry and to find myself wholly vindicated in my opinion that no evidence would be found of an organised or widespread conspiracy to furnish loyalist paramilitaries with confidential information. I have noted carefully the Minister's response to my earlier intervention and I suspect from what he said that he, like many others, including myself, believes that the Stevens operation in which 28 innocent UDR men were arrested in a massive early Sunday morning operation was a callous and ill-judged political stunt. I am sure that neither of us would wish to see such a dangerous blunder repeated.
As I have previously asserted, I have no personal experience of bad apples in the regiment, although some people would like to suggest otherwise for political reasons. Those people, either foolishly or maliciously, play into the hands of the Provisional IRA and help to prolong the suffering of our community. There are no bad apples, but I have known far too many bruised apples—those who, after facing the unrelenting threat of imminent murder over many years, become physically, mentally and emotionally drained. I welcome the provision for each permanent cadre soldier of a warrant for himself, his wife and young children so that they can go to Great Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel islands for an annual holiday. I hope that that is the beginning of a new awareness of the need to care for those who constantly live under such stressful conditions.
I ask the Minister to give serious thought to extending that concession to the part-time UDR soldier, who probably lives an even more precarious existence, especially in his civilian employment. To start with, perhaps, the warrant could be given to those who have earned their annual bounty by carrying out the required operational duties, training and camp commitment. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the real need here.
I draw the Minister's attention to the lack in Northern Ireland of any "exercise executive stretch" scheme for employers of members of the Territorial Army. Indeed, the scheme could also be applied to the employers of members of the UDR. I understand the security difficulties, but I suggest that a similar scheme would be useful.
It would surprise many people if they knew how many serving soldiers in Northern Ireland, particularly part-time members of the UDR, have to sacrifice their annual summer holiday to attend camp. Although some have to do that for security reasons, so that they do not draw undue attention to their membership of the regiment, others find that after 20 years, bosses are not altogether amenable or co-operative. The sacrifice of a holiday week puts pressure on family time and can create domestic problems. I hope that that aspect of soldier welfare can be examined and that a subtle programme for re-educating employers can be undertaken. We should not expect even the stoutest and bravest soldiers to endure, as many have, 20 years of mental and often physical brutality from the terrorist and yet to remain unscathed.
As we have seen over the past 20 years, terrorism does not respond to reasoning or to concessions, no matter how generous or well intentioned. It will recede only if it faces a community that remains resolute to withstand what it knows to be evil. In this democratic society, we as a

community depend, in the last resort, on our Army acting in support of the civil power. It is therefore imperative, despite overall financial constraints, that we take adequate steps to ensure that the Army is not deployed in the Northern Ireland theatre in a purely reactive role. The adequate resourcing, welfare and morale of our forces, especially in Northern Ireland, must be seen to be primary and constant concerns of the House in general and of the Government in particular.

Sir Jim Spicer: I want to open with a word of advice for the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), made a clear reference to what he would do about tanks. He said that he wanted an order placed for them and that he thought that there was also a good role for a mobile strike force. He was talking about increased expenditure and I advise him to be careful when he goes to his party conference this year. I suspect that the authentic voice of the Labour party will be talking far more about the peace dividend this year than he believes. Let him beware. We shall all watch with interest to see how the conference goes.
It is almost a year since we had our previous debate on the Army. As many hon. Members have said this evening, if one reads that debate it is incredible to see how far we are removed from our thinking last year. However, there is one inescapable fact. People talk about the Warsaw pact and the NATO Alliance as if they were both still in being. The fact is that the Warsaw pact is dead in military terms, it is dead in political terms and it has no relevance. With the greatest respect to Mr. Gorbachev, it is nonsense for him still to try to create the illusion of a balance between the two forces and for him to call, therefore, for a joint reduction. None of us should pay any attention to that.
It is logical that we should look at a reshaping of the structure and composition of our armed forces against the changes that have taken place in Europe. There is a diminished threat of a land battle in Europe and that must mean a total rethink of the composition of our armed forces in Germany and of NATO armed forces as well. I am not seeking to undermine the morale of our armed forces in saying that; it is a fact.
Whether one is serving with a tank regiment in Germany or with a parachute battalion in the United Kingdom, one knows that the chessmen on the board have moved. Therefore, we should react to that. The case for restructuring has been made. Also, a clear case has been made for an expansion of our air mobility strike force. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that we need a force that can hit hard and fast at longer ranges. That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that he must be talking about some form of airborne formation arid, I hope, an enlarged one.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: You would, wouldn't you?

Sir Jim Spicer: Indeed I would.
In that context, I am quite certain that Ministers and their advisers in the Ministry of Defence will have read with interest an article in The Times of 14 May by General Sir Geoffrey Howlett, the newly retired commander-in-chief of allied forces, north. He made the case for that new force to be built up not as an airborne brigade but as an


airborne division. His wealth of experience and his role as a NATO commander must lead us to take note of what he said. He called for 5 Airborne Brigade, 24 Air Mobile Brigade and the Commando Brigade to be brought together under one umbrella to form an air mobile division. Of course that will be costly—everyone accepts that—but, equally, there must be some offset in the changes that will inevitably take place on the land front in Europe.
There is not much point in thinking about such an organisation unless we also think of the back-up that will have to come from the Territorial Army. For the past 25 years we have relied on calling upon young men to join the TA because of the reality of a Soviet threat in Europe. To say the least, that threat has diminished over the past few months, and I hope that it will diminish even further. What will now be the incentive for ordinary young men willingly to join the TA? What will we say to them? Will we say, "You have a role—we have a need of you"? I would seek to link the new air mobile division, which I hope will be formed, to an enhanced role for the TA.
There is nothing new in defence terms. I was G3 of 16 Airborne Division when it was disbanded and it became 16 Para Brigade. I would love to see that division reformed, because in every major city in the United Kingdom there would be a parachute battalion that could easily be linked to its regular opposite number as a regular air mobile battalion. I have not expanded on this as much as I should like, but we would certainly get the recruits for such a division. We must offer young men adventure and the opportunity to travel. They would get that as TA soldiers within an airborne formation to a much greater extent than they would anywhere else.
There are people who say that we can exercise our options in the immediate future. I do not think that we can. We must assess the threat, as has been said on both sides. Who can say what the threat will be in one year, let alone in 20 years? Beyond that, until December, when the first elections in unified Germany are held, we must keep every option open. I say that because there is just an outside chance that the Social Democrats might win the election in Germany. If they did so, they would immediately form a coalition with the Greens and, as has been stated, there would be the possibility of a neutralised German state outside the NATO alliance. The thought of that fills me with fear.
Germany's membership of NATO is of supreme importance to the peace of the continent. I pay tribute to Chancellor Kohl for all that he has done in the past and I hope for his resounding success and that of his allies in the elections in a united Germany. For the sake of every person not only in this country but in the rest of the world, I hope and pray Chancellor Kohl will win the election and that we shall not have to live with the Greens and Social Democrats in government.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Unlike the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) I should have thought that a neutral Germany was something that we could look forward to with great pleasure rather than

fear. The history of Europe shows that the level of arms in Germany, rather than the prospect of it being neutral, has frightened people for most of this century.
The question that I ask has been posed in every debate on the armed services and on the defence estimates. Have the Government a defence review or not? The official position is that the Government are not carrying out a defence review; they are looking for options for change. Who is in charge of options for change? Is it the Secretary of State or the Minister of State? The worst aspect is that the debate seems to be conducted by leaks and counter-leaks rather than discussion of the future of our defence forces.
I understand the arguments that were deployed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and one or two other hon. Members, about the effect that a full review would have on morale. The morale of our armed forces will be damaged far more if personnel learn about what is happening through leaks. They listen to rumours and, on the whole, they are kept in the dark. I make a strong plea that we want the most open public debate about what our armed forces are supposed to do in the future, what options they have, and how we can most effectively respond. We must get away from the idea that most of our defence policy can be conducted and discussed in secret rather than in proper public debate.
It is typical of the Government's approach that they believe in deceit and duplicity. They publicly welcome the removal of cruise missiles from Greenham Common but, at the same time, encourage the Americans to bring back those same missiles as sea-launched weapons.
I wish to raise three specific matters, the first of which relates to troops. Several hon. Members have said that we shall find it increasingly difficult to recruit 18-year-olds into the armed forces simply because there are far fewer 18-year-olds and competition for them will be increasingly strong. We shall need far fewer 18-year-olds if we can get troop reductions in West Germany. Obviously, by 1997, we shall also have fewer troops in the far east and Hong Kong. However, there will still be major recruitment problems, so we must look at the balance.
At the moment, our troops spend time in West Germany, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. As we reduce our commitment for troops outside the United Kingdom we must look at the proportion of time that they will serve in Northern Ireland and, in particular, take into account the effect on their families, wives and parents and the possible pressure on them not to complete a long stint abroad. As part of the review we must look at the role of the Army in Northern Ireland and, possibly, the training of Army personnel if they are to spend most of their time in a role in Northern Ireland rather than in a combat role.
My second point relates to an issue that has already been referred to—the future of the tank. Hon. Members have questioned whether there is now any prospect of tanks rolling across the plains of Europe from the east and have wondered what our response should now be. There is also the question whether we can do the same things much more effectively using helicopters rather than tanks. We must also consider the number of orders that might be placed for a new generation of tanks.
However, my main point relates specifically to the training of the people who will use the tanks. In recent years there has clearly been growing resentment in West Germany about the training there of our people in our tanks. I believe that the continuation of such training will


now be totally unacceptable to the West Germans. Indeed, I am amazed that people have put up with the nuisance and the difficulties caused by that training. It is almost certain that we shall have to look elsewhere for those training facilities.
Have the Government considered whether the level of tank training that now takes place in West Germany would be acceptable in the United Kingdom? We must bear in mind the amount of land that will be required for any such future tank training.
That brings me to a question that I have raised many times in the House—the amount of land that is owned by the military in the United Kingdom, and the use to which it is put. I believe that the military still has 250,000 hectares, much of which was grabbed during the first and second world wars, when no one really questioned whether it was essential. Since then, evidence has continued to suggest that the military has far more land than is absolutely necessary.
There was a lot of pressure in 1968 and 1969 to set up an inquiry into defence land. There was also the Nugent committee review between 1971 and 1973. Considering that that committee comprised many people from the Ministry of Defence and was perhaps biased towards their point of view, it came up with some fairly strong recommendations for the release of a great deal of the defence land. I accept that since then some of the land has been released, but a lot more land could be. Much of the land that has been released has been on the urban fringes rather than in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Ministry of Defence now seems to be considering ways in which it can get a bit of extra land. It put forward proposals for an extra range at Luddesdown in Kent and blew its proposals for bagging a large area of extra land at Knoydart in Scotland. On both occasions the Government seemed to back off—first because of a public inquiry, and secondly because of public pressure. Some of the current leaks suggest that if troops return from Germany, the Government will need to look for extra land. Worryingly, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made it clear that the Ministry of Defence is looking for extra land. However, I would argue strongly that it should be looking to release land, especially in Pembroke and in the Pennines.
I realise that there are major problems with some of those areas of land, because they contain unexploded ammunition and bombs. However, I plead with the Government to work hard at speeding the process of removing and disposing of that ammunition and those bombs from such areas, and then returning the land to public access.
All the evidence relating to the options that the Government are considering suggests that defence expenditure on equipment will be reduced over the next three or four years. If that is the case, it has serious implications for the defence contractors in this country. We should be considering an arms conversion agency. In the changing circumstances, we cannot justify this country continuing to spend so much on arms and we cannot expect other countries to continue to spend as much with our arms manufacturers.
I do not want to see people put out of jobs. I do not want people to have to face the choice of continuing to produce further useless weapons or becoming unemployed, because I know the choice that most people would make. I want to ensure that those people can make useful

things and that we do get a peace dividend not simply for the Government, but for those who have worked in armaments who should be enabled to work in other areas.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), I firmly believe that the message that the Government—and my own Front Bench—must now accept is that over the next few years the British people will be looking for a peace dividend. They do not accept that, if the United States can start cutting ․17 billion from its defence expenditure and there can be a 20 per cent. cut in arms in West Germany and substantial peace dividends in East Germany and the Soviet Union, there cannot be a peace dividend in the United Kingdom—

Mr. Rogers: I must advise my hon. Friend that I said that there would be a peace dividend, but not an immediate one. The changes that need to take place to adapt to the new political—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is already out of time.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) rose to intervene, I noted that I had another minute to go, in which I would have emphasised that, yes, we want a peace dividend and it must be planned. We must ensure that we get a peace dividend over the next few years and that we do not pass up that opportunity.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is completely wrong about military land. I was partly responsible for the approach on the Knoydart peninsula, when the new Secretary of State's first decision was that we should not proceed. The estate was subsequently broken up and access is restricted. The Ministry of Defence would have served the hon. Gentleman's interests far better than he perhaps appreciates.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the debate being about leaks. There are two sorts of secrets in the Ministry of Defence—the military secrets, which are kept impeccably, and the other secrets, which seem to get out according to whose interests might be served by ensuring that they get into whatever newspaper might suit. I assume that the rumour that the Treasury is looking for a cut of £1 billion as a peace dividend came from the Treasury, so I do not accuse the Ministry of Defence of that. The rumour smacked of Treasury tricks of the worst order. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or his officials will read the Hansard report of this debate with care because there is a surprising unanimity—certainly among Conservative Members—about how we should treat the changing events in relation to finance.
I have attended these service debates for many years now and I am sure that my colleagues who are also regular attenders will agree that there has been a complete change of tone in this debate. It has been a much more thoughtful occasion, in which there has been much closer agreement between hon. Members of all parties. That is commendable and in the national interest.
The second leak that we seem to be debating is that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made some suggestions that are now circulating within the Ministry of Defence, and that in some way that


represents a split and an outrageous difference of opinion within the Ministry. One of the saddest things is that it is extremely difficult for Ministers to put out their original thoughts if those thoughts are subsequently leaked. There must be debate within Departments. There must be thought and there must be an appreciation of change.
If my hon. Friend's paper has been properly reported, I must confess to disagreeing with quite a bit of it and I should be happy to debate it, but I hope that all Ministers are putting forward their own ideas—not only in the Ministry of Defence. This is a moment of change, and change must be debated both within and without Government, and in the House. It is extremely important that the House should give its opinions.
Something that worries me is that, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, we have unstable Governments in the very countries that have caused us most of the wars in Europe for the past 2,000 years. It would be lunacy to imagine that, simply because the Warsaw pact has collapsed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) has pointed out—we should now drop our guard. The threat may well come in some different and unknown way. The history of warfare shows that that is often the case.
For ourselves, pulling out of Germany will be a long and expensive business, as will be the case for the Russians when they pull out of the Warsaw pact. Without a substantial reduction in numbers, we do not have the accommodation to bring the British Army of the Rhine back to the United Kingdom at present. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on building the Germans some fine barracks, hospitals and workshops, but that is history and we must live with it.
I was more sorry to hear that some exercises had been cancelled as a result of the changes. That is neither good for morale nor a sensible economy. It is not fair on the troops. I do not know the details, but I ask Ministers to be careful before changing the carefully organised routine of BAOR. I note that the Secretary of State said on 9 March at the Royal United Services Institute:
there could be a need for flexible and more mobile forces, properly equipped, well trained and well motivated".
Many of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have said that that is the future.
It will come as no surprise to Ministers to learn that I believe that helicopters are an extremely important part of any Army, whether we remain as we are or change our position. The Defence Select Committee report on the EH101 said:
MOD's consideration of the requirement for support helicopters, and the way in which such a requirement should be met, stretches back to the mid 1970's and the matter needs urgent resolution. Indeed, MOD have in the past contributed to their own difficulties, as a result of their inability to bring themselves to a position where their philosophy for mobility on the battlefield of the 1990's and beyond could be stated, and thus a firm requirement determined.
That puts it in a nutshell. The military has never made up its mind. It is ready to blame Westland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and I have many Westland employees in our constituencies. I have no doubt that Westland is often incompetent, but it certainly deals with a difficult customer. If only the Government

could take the military, shake it hard and say, "What do you really want? Get on and order it," we might make some progress.
The 24 Air Mobile Brigade is no more mobile than a bicycle battalion. If we took enough helicopters to give 24 Brigade as many helicopters as its United States, French or German equivalent, there would be no helicopters left in the Air Force or the Army. That is the state of play of our air mobility.
While I entirely welcome the statement made in the Navy debate by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement that he proposes to go ahead with the EH 101 naval version, I hope that the promise of the then Secretary of State for Defence that
the Government have decided to introduce the Utility EH101 to meet that requirement"—[Official Report, 9 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 471.]
will be met. That was three years ago. We were all pleased to have that announcement, but nothing further has happened.
I entirely share the view of many of my hon. Friends that the Territorial Army must have a brighter future. It must have a larger proportion of the Army's total budget. Its share is still small. The TA is tackling the problem of officers to some extent. The problem varies from one end of the country to the other, but the fact remains that busy young men who are the sort of leaders needed to keep the TA on the road are the very people who are keeping industry and commerce going. While it is not difficult to recruit in London, in many parts of the country finding the right grade of officers and keeping them is a problem.
Whatever the mythology may be, pay matters. Paying all sections of the TA generously would be no bad thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said that the TA could perhaps become part of Regular Army units. That is an interesting idea, which should perhaps be pursued. Until the Regular Army takes the TA more seriously, the TA will have problems. I suggest again that recruiting for the TA should become the responsibility of the Regular Army. That would concentrate the mind of the Army. It would be its money and it would see at first hand why young soldiers do not stay in the TA.
I am delighted, as we all are, with the political changes that have taken place recently, but I do not feel any more secure militarily speaking than 12 months ago. This is no time to drop our guard.

Mr. Tony Banks: One thing on which we can all agree this evening, if on nothing else, is that this debate takes place against an amazing backdrop of momentous events in eastern Europe and, indeed, western Europe. For the first time, the map of Europe is being redrawn peacefully. It is not being done by force of arms; it is not coming about as a result of a military defeat or a military victory. It is absolutely breathtaking. Events are moving so fast that it is difficult for us to keep up with them.
Among all those who never predicted the changes, there seems to be a welter of experts telling us how they took place and why. Ministers are among the worst offenders in that respect. The Minister's opening speech was an example of it. We heard that it is all effectively the result of the nuclear weapons of the west bringing the Soviets to their senses. That is a one-dimensional, simplistic


approach. The theory is particularly prevalent among the right wing of the military establishment, both in Britain and in the United States. If I remember rightly, they are the same people who were for ever telling us how far the west was behind the Soviets in terms of nuclear warheads, conventional weapons and technology. The Minister himself said that, although the Soviets were withdrawing from central Europe, we must bear it in mind that they have enormous strength in conventional weapons, far greater than ours, so we must keep our conventional defences.
How the hell will the Soviets get to us if we have a conventional war? Will they have to fight their way across Poland, Czechoslovakia and a united Germany before they make contact with us? The completely different scenario must be taken into account by the Government when considering the balance of conventional forces.
The Prime Minister claims some sort of fame for having discovered Mikhail Gorbachev. She is like a political equivalent of Hughie Green on "Opportunity Knocks." She says, "We discovered this man." Mikhail Gorbachev is certainly the political catalyst for all the enormously important events that are unfolding around us. If anyone qualifies for Hegel's definition of a world spirit or as a world historical figure, it must be Mikhail Gorbachev. He opened up visions of a new order that were unimaginable even a year ago when we had the Army debate.
For so dramatically changing the world order, Mikhail Gorbachev is paying a great price. He might even pay the price of his life. That is always a possibility, given the tension within the Soviet state. Certainly, he could pay the lesser price of losing his political office. Whatever happens to him, nothing can alter the fact that he has enabled the single most important event in Europe since the Russian revolution of 1917 to take place. Whatever else happens, his legacy will undoubtedly outlive him.
What has been our response? It has been pathetic. Gorbachev has risked everything. We in the west have offered little or nothing. In the United States at the summit, President Bush denied the Soviets favoured nation status on trade, something that they desperately need. He denied the Soviets that on the same day as he reconfirmed it for China, which was celebrating the first anniversary of the Tiananmen square massacre. What message does that send back to the people in the Soviet Union?
Gorbachev was lectured by the Senate on the position of Lithuania, but the Senate approved the invasion of Panama. A great deal of hypocrisy is flying around as Mr. Gorbachev tries to work wonders. We stand back and say, "If you succeed, that will be great. If you fail, it will be unpleasant but don't expect us to do much to help you." That is no response to the momentous events that we are witnessing.
The Prime Minister seems to like Mr. Gorbachev, but she uses him for photo opportunities rather than offering to take radical steps in this country to match what he is doing in his. Mr. Gorbachev risks all and we risk absolutely nothing. There is no imagination or vision in British politics at present. Our response is pathetic. Everyone says that we must not take any chances. There is a man in the Soviet Union taking enormous chances, but we are not prepared to take any. Why do we not catch the infectious spirit of optimism and say, "We might run some risks, but they are not the risks that Gorbachev is running or that the people of the east are running"?
The Warsaw pact is crumbling and now it is no threat to the west. Many of us never saw it as a threat, but we were laughed at and scorned when we said so. On the Government Front Bench there is only one politician of rank who is going some way to respond to the new situation the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. At least he is trying. I hope that I am not doing his glittering political career any terminal damage by saying so. I listened to his Radio 4 interview, which was good and intriguing. He talked about "very substantial savings" as a result of events in the east.
I understand that the paper produced by the Cabinet defence and overseas policy committee makes a number of radical proposals, which deserve a wide audience. They should be considered sympathetically by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. At least the hon. Gentleman has made a start and has gone some way to match the great events in the east. We must congratulate him on being so courageous among such a timorous group of colleagues in such a timid Cabinet.
I have some modest proposals for redrawing our defence strategy. Everyone understands that we shall have a united Germany. I said that when I was in the United States talking to all the clever think tanks. The Americans said that that would not happen, and the Soviets said that they were not prepared to allow it. I asked what they would do if the people voted with their feet—would they send the tanks in? Unfortunately, many people in this country, in the United States and in the Soviet Union were unable to predict the united Germany.
The united Germany should be outside NATO and the Warsaw pact and it should be declared a demilitarised zone. I do not know what Conservative Members might think, but the opinion polls of East and West Germany show that that is the desire of the majority of Germans. Their views should at least be considered.
I noted what the Minister said about the withdrawal of Russian troops from central Europe, but why are we talking about the maintenance of the British Army of the Rhine? There is no short-term requirement for British troops to remain on German soil.
I believe that NATO should be disbanded as a military organisation and that it should become more of a political one based on the Western European Union or the North Atlantic Assembly.

Mr. Conway: Oh!

Mr. Banks: Obviously the hon. Gentleman does riot have much time for the WEU, but I am a member of it and I am going there tomorrow—perhaps that is why he does not like it. At least the WEU attracts people with some imagination, which is more than can be said for the pedants on Conservative Benches.
We should also consider the withdrawal of nuclear weapons and bases from European soil. The defence of Europe must be a European responsibility, and I want the European defence dimension taken into account. As the European Community moves towards political union, it should take on defence responsibilities with the eventual objective of a European Community stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals—the common European home talked of by Gorbachev and others.
The people of the United Kingdom, of east and west Europe and of north America accept that there is a peace dividend. There are many social pressures here and in


other countries that must be addressed, but while the military is eating up so much of our budgets those pressures cannot be lessened. That is why the peace dividend must be seized, and that is why I hope that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have his day.
Enormous, wonderful events have taken place. This is a time of imagination, verve and elan, but I see none of that on the Conservative Benches but for one single exception. I hope that the Minister will be joined by some allies when Ministers come to discuss in detail how the British Government will redefine our defence policies.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Nearly half the Labour Members who have spoken today said that there should be an immediate defence review. I am sure that a major defence review is going on right now, but it is different from the previous great defence review that was carried out in 1981.
I remember the 1981 defence review very well, because certain misguided individuals in the Ministry of Defence suggested that drastic cuts should be made in the British Army of the Rhine. I was the Army Minister at that time and it was fairly easy to repel those arguments. First, we did not have the barracks or the trainee areas in this country to take back 30,000 men, particularly as the bulk of our armoured regiments and our gunner regiments served in Germany and had particularly heavy requirements for training areas. Secondly, it would have cost money to impose those cuts because of the redundancy terms that were in force. The extra cost of demobilising men as they stepped off the ferry would have been carried for about seven years. Therefore, BAOR remained unscathed.
Now, as the Warsaw pact has disintegrated and as German reunification will soon be completed, it is only too easy to imagine that we should be required to reduce the size of our forces in Germany from their present level of about 60,000 to about 20,000 in nine years' time. Nine years ago it was difficult to imagine that BAOR could cease to be our main defence commitment. Now it is difficult to imagine that it could possibly continue at anything like its present size for another nine years.
It is clear that any change will have a profound impact on the size, structure and life of the Army. For the first time in living memory it will mean that the bulk of the Army will be stationed at home. On 1 April last year, 66,000 out of 140,000 trained soldiers in our Army were serving overseas. That was a normal proportion. In the past 40 years, more than half our trained soldiers have regularly served overseas and that has meant that domestic turbulence has been normal. It is now probable that, in the comparatively near future, four fifths of our Army will be stationed regularly at home. That will have a profound impact on the way in which the Army receives a great deal of its professional support.
An Army largely based overseas needs special hospitals, schools and large legal departments to deal with foreign nationals. That has led to the swelling of specialist corps. An Army stationed at home will still need a great deal of professional support, but I am sure that some of our specialist corps could be cut drastically. Fighting units will

always need doctors who are trained to go into combat, but I should be astonished if, in 10 years' time, we needed a Royal Army Medical Corps and even today I doubt whether we need a separate Royal Army Dental Corps.
I was glad to read reports—I hope that they are accurate and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can confirm this—that plans are being drawn up to merge some of the smaller corps such as the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Royal Army Veterinary Corps into a new Adjutant-General's Corps. That is a sensible administrative move. There may also be scope for setting up a quartermaster-general's corps, which could include the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Royal Corps of Transport and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps.
There will certainly be a need to revise the future equipment requirement of the Army. As the threat of a major armoured battle on the central plains of Europe recedes, so does the need for a brand new Army battle tank. There are solid diplomatic grounds for not cancelling re-equipment projects while the discussions on the future of Germany are at a crucial phase and while problems have arisen in the CFE negotiations, but the Ministry of Defence has had ample experience of delaying contracts, and cutting costs must take priority over speed of delivery.
Research into new forms of armament and gunnery must continue. It would be a pity if the Iraqis were to have a monopoly on that sort of long-range development. In a world that will continue to be a dangerous place, we must maintain an Army that is versatile and flexible. As many of my hon. Friends have said, that means keeping the largest possible number of infantry battalions. Those battalions need not all have the same role and the same training.
We shall need well-equipped, highly trained forces capable of rapid deployment inside and outside Europe. There is almost a majority of hon. Members present tonight who served in the Parachute Regiment. I too believe that that force must be based on the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marine Commandos. The need for the Special Air Services is also likely to grow rather than diminish.
However, some battalions will have a more limited role and some of them could become hybrid, half regular and half reserve. The reservists in such hybrid battalions should have a commitment similar to the old ever-readies. Some of my hon. Friends will remember that the ever-readies in the 1960s had a higher training commitment than the normal Territorial Army volunteers and could be called up at short notice. For that commitment, the ever-readies received substantial extra annual funding.
The new ever-readies could be required to do a short period of basic training with the Regular Army. Indeed, in practice I expect that many of the new ever-readies would be ex-Regular soldiers. They would be expected to serve a month or two each year with their regular unit. They would have a high call-up ability and would be paid at least £1,000 a year for that commitment. While doing their annual training with their battalion, they would also receive Regular Army pay. Such an expanded reserve service will become possible once the bulk of the Army is stationed at home and it becomes unusual for battalions to move far from their home bases.
I wish Ministers well in their study of options for change and I hope that their thorough-going review will


take into account the need to improve the quality of our reserve forces. The Territorial Army has served us well for the past 40 years. It has a great role in the future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish at the outset to thank the private office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for handling a particularly tragic constituency case.
My speech will be about the accountability of the security services, and it will be partly about the proposition that, if sexual abuse of boys in care is known to the state and to the British military, it is simply unacceptable to do nothing about it and to allow it to go on. In my view, the situation is somewhat worse than the security services smearing politicians.
I watched, as did a number of colleagues, on the night of 1 June a BBC programme in which a former Army intelligence officer at Lisburn, a captain, passed on information about the scandal at Kincora to a senior MI5 officer, Mr. Ian Cameron, at HQ Northern Ireland in 1975, only to be told in the strongest possible terms to desist from further investigation into alleged sexual assaults on children in the home. Do Minister accept that view of events that will have been brought to their attention?
Furthermore, the captain also purported to point out that, when he was interviewed by the Terry inquiry in 1982, he gave the police officers carrying out the investigation details of the information that he had passed on to MI5 seven years earlier. Not a word about the captain's knowledge of the scandal appears in the information supplied to Parliament by the Terry report, and it is clear that all details of MI5 and intelligence information about the affairs were deliberately suppressed by the authorities to avoid the inevitable parliamentary demands for a proper judicial inquiry into what had taken place.
A number of important questions that should be answered have been put to the Prime Minister.
First, why did MI5 order this captain to stop his investigation into what has now been established as one of the most notorious cases of child sex abuse in Britain in recent years?
Secondly, did either Detective Superintendent Caskey of the RUC or Detective Superintendent Harrison of the Sussex police inform Sir John Hermon and/or Sir George Terry that MI5 was refusing to answer their questions about Army intelligence knowledge of Kincora?
Thirdly, did Sir John Hermon or Sir George Terry inform the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that MI5 was failing to answer questions put by the police officers carrying out the inquiry?
Fourthly, if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was informed about the obstruction, what steps did he take to ensure MI5's co-operation and why did he give in Parliament such fulsome praise to Sir George Terry's inquiry?
Fifthly, bearing in mind that the Terry inquiry was set up by the Government, why did no Minister intervene and insist that MI5 assist the police in the matter?
Sixthly, when Parliament was being repeatedly misled by the conclusions of the Terry report over Army intelligence knowledge of the scandal, why did none of

those who knew about MI5's refusal to co-operate with the inquiry bother to bring that to the attention of the House of Commons?
Sixthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seventhly."] I should have said seventhly—what is the earliest known recorded date of a reference made to Clockwork Orange in Ministry of Defence files? If Conservative Members are sceptical, I remind them that my contribution to the last Army debate on 8 June, according to Hansard, prompted the Ministry of Defence eventually to give more details of what actually happened in the case of Colin Wallace.
Eighthly, what became of the copy of Clockwork Orange which was typed by Miss Penny Sadler at Army HQ Northern Ireland and which Colin Wallace gave to Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Railton on leaving Northern Ireland in February 1975?
Ninthly, who authorised Miss Sadler to undertake work on the Clockwork Orange project? Tenthly, in the light of public statements allegedly made by some of those who took part in the raid by members of the Army information services on Aldergrove airport, will the Secretary of State reconsider his earlier statement on this matter and say whether captured IRA weapons and explosives were carried by those who took part in the raid and whether a bomb was planted on that occasion in the Ulster Defence Regiment headquaters in Antrim?
Following the receipt of documents from the file which Mr. Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984, was the Director of Army Security, Major General Garrett, consulted about their contents and about the role of Mr. Wallace at HQ Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind the fact that the documents written by Mr. Peter Broderick and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and enclosed with the file which Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984 clearly contradicted Government statements to Parliament during that period, what steps were taken by the Ministry of Defence to establish the reasons for the obvious conflict between those accounts and the Government's version of the same events?
Why were Mr. Peter Broderick, Mr. Michael Taylor and Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Railton not interviewed by the authorities as a result of the information contained in the file which Mr. Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984? Following the discovery of documents relating to Mr. Wallace's case in 1989, why was Mr. Peter Broderick not consulted by the MOD as to Mr. Wallace's allegations and the nature of his employment in the information policy unit at Army HQ Northern Ireland? What is the earliest known recorded date when the Kincora boys home was mentioned in MOD files?
In the light of the Minister of State's statement to the House on 30 January, will the Secretary of State comment on the contents of the letter from Brigadier Rous, Director of Army Public Relations, to Mr. Robert Parker of Channel 4 on 23 July 1987 regarding Colin Wallace? On what date did Mr. Peter Broderick write to Major-General Peter Leng asking for the release of information for use in the Clockwork Orange project?
To which Government Departments was Mr. Wallace's document entitled "Political and Security Implications Regarding the Disclosure of Security Classified Information to Assist in the Investigation of the Allegations Relating to the Kincora Boys Hostel, Belfast" circulated between 1984 and 1989? What criteria were used when separating papers relating to Mr. Wallace's case


between the office of the Permanent Under-Secretary and the Deputy Under-Secretary, CM? Was the information policy unit at Army HQ Lisburn responsible for planning and implementing psychological operations in Northern Ireland and, if so, who authorised the setting up of its terms of reference?
Bearing in mind the repeated assurances given to Parliament by Ministers, that over the years there have been the "most thorough inquiries" into the allegations, did such inquiries actually take place? If thorough inquiries did not take place, then either Ministers were misled by their advisers into believing that they did, or Ministers knew that such inquiries did not take place and deliberately misinformed the House. On the other hand, if thorough inquiries did take place, one must conclude that either the full facts of the matter were discovered and deliberately withheld by officials from Ministers, who then unwittingly misled Parliament, or Ministers were given the correct facts but deliberately withheld the correct information from the House. It is clear that a number of senior staff who were employed at the MoD when Ministers were giving misleading answers to Parliament had direct personal knowledge of the events in question. Did none of those individuals bring the correct facts to the attention of the Government and, if not, why not?

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If any hon. Member deserves to be called tenacious, it is the hon. Gentleman. No one is more fitted to that description and it is important to have the hon. Gentleman on one's side, as I found to my pleasure when he supported me during the passage of my Computer Misuse Bill. I thank him for that support, but, of course, I cannot take up any of the points that he made today in his typical way.
The debate takes place in a new, unexpected and welcome political situation. We are no longer eyeball to eyeball with our potential enemies across the iron curtain. The cold war may not have been very pleasant but at least it was a stable situation and now in a defence sense we are operating in an unstable situation. In these uncertain times, we need stronger and not weaker defences and strong and resolute leadership.
Hon. Members have spoken about the peace dividend. Surely that arises as a result of the strength investment. If we cut that investment too much, we will put at jeopardy the peace dividend. We are operating in a very different defence scenario. The Warsaw pact force is redundant because it is an unworkable organisation. It used to mobilise in two days, but that now takes two months. The whole idea of massive armoured and infantry assaults across Europe is ludicrous. In the Soviet bloc, morale in the armed forces has gone and I understand that draft dodging is as high as 10 per cent.
The peace that we are enjoying is brittle; we should not jump to the conclusion that all is sweetness and light. There are some hard and reactionary men in the Kremlin, and if things go wrong with perestroika they could be back in charge. There is no doubt that, as the Soviet economy collapses, there is a considerable likelihood of Soviet

withdrawals from central Europe, although I have no idea what the Soviet Union would do with the millions who would be unemployed as a result of such demobilisation.
The President of the United States is under considerable pressure to deal with his twin deficits of budget and trade, and he will also be tempted to withdraw. If the need then arises to reoccupy central Europe, we should bear in mind what I have described as the two Georgias comparison. To deploy troops from Georgia in the USSR to Berlin takes 15 days but to deploy troops from Georgia in the United States to Berlin takes 90 days and they have to cross the Atlantic ocean. We should consider that when we are talking about withdrawals by either side.
I welcome the Government's review of the defence structure in their options for change. As some hon. Members have said, it is not a full-scale defence review. It is far too early for that, because the situation is too fluid. I support the priorities of the Secretary of State for Defence, among which is the maintenance of a credible nuclear deterrent, because that is our best insurance as it has been for the last 40 years of peace. I also support the adoption of policies that give greater flexibility and mobility.
When he addressed the Select Committee on Defence, the Secretary of State acknowledged that some thinning out of forward forces and great emphasis on rapid reinforcement and flexibility were necessary. He laid particular stress on getting better equipment for more flexible mobile forces in the 1990s and he concluded his evidence to the Select Committee by saying:
One of the most urgent requirements now is for a new force of battlefield helicopters,".
I should like to speak about helicopters. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said when he drew attention to the undertaking by the then Secretary of State for Defence my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 9 April three years ago when he announced an order for 25 support utility helicopters, the Anglo-Italian EH101 made by Westland and Augusta. The EH101 comes in two versions—the maritime version and the battlefield version. This being an Army debate, I shall deal with the battlefield version. The Secretary of State, when he made his announcement to the House, acknowledged that, in terms of the numbers deployed in Europe, Britain compares badly with both the French and the Germans, as it does with the Americans. When British troops are being moved about the theatre, we rely heavily on the United States to lift them.
The tactical support helicopter, the EH101, will be able to carry out various missions. It will be able to transport men and materials, and that includes light vehicles carried either internally or externally, to and from and within the battlefield. Artillery pieces can also be underslung. It can act as a mobile command post. It can be used as a platform for electronic warfare or airborne early warning. It is used for logistic purposes with either internal or underslung loads, and it has a self-ferrying capability, its range being 1,115 nautical miles. It is an extremely flexible aircraft and can be powered by a wide variety of Rolls-Royce engines—variations of the RTM 322. The EH101 is available to the British armed forces in four different variations, which shows its design flexibility.
Over the past year, there has been much debate about the pros and cons of the EH 101 as a support helicopter


and the Black Hawk. The former has been criticised for being too large to operate successfully in the hostile environment expected in general war in central Europe. However, the rapidly changing situation in that area should cause the detractors of the EH101 to think again. This aircraft has a greater range than the Black Hawk. It can ferry itself to an operational deployment zone. Given the limited manpower ceiling of aircrew and maintenance staff, a force of EH 101s will carry three times as many troops as a similar number of Black Hawks. The tasks for the mobile forces are likely to take place in a less hostile environment than those that were expected in central Europe, so the larger and less hardened EH 101 should be much more effective than the Black Hawk and better in terms of cost-effectiveness.
For all those reasons, the EH 101 is the right choice for the defence forces, but that raises the question of who will fly them. I know that there has been considerable debate as to whether this should be a task for the Royal Air Force or for the Army Air Corps or even for the Royal Corps of Transport, which is equally capable of carrying it out. That debate should be reopened because as we, I hope, start deploying more helicopters, we shall have to boost the strength of the Army Air Corps and run down the role of the RAF. In that task, we want to see them flying British-Italian aircraft rather than American Chinooks.
Several hon. Members have referred to the need for newly defined roles for our Army units. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said about an air mobile division. I am conscious that, with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) here as well, this debate has been enlivened by the Parachute Regiment lobby. Guardsmen have also been known to hurl themselves out of aircraft on the ends of parachutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and I have both indulged in the pastime. Within the air mobile division that has been suggested, there could be a special role for the Foot Guards as part of a rapid deployment corps, perhaps one that is helicopter-borne and specially trained for that purpose.
I hope that there is no thought in the Minister's mind that specialist ceremonial troops should be stationed in London, because that would be a disaster. If troops were stationed in central London, it would be much better to train them for helicopter operations so that they could fly from central London to training zones and back again. This makes a great deal of sense. There is a good case for a territorial unit within the Brigade of Guards, and if there was one, I should join it.
I have said nothing about attack helicopters, which are the subject of another debate. We have the utility Lynx with strapped-on armaments, which is far from satisfactory. We should have a tailormade battlefield helicopter. The urgent requirement is for greater mobility; that is why my hon. Friend the Minister must tell the House when decisions will be made about supplying the Army with the mobility and flexibility that it requires, and would have if more helicopters were ordered. The Government have acknowledged this.
The Secretary of State has already said that he will order 25 utility versions of the EH101. We should like to hear confirmation of that order, and we should like to hear what additional helicopters the Government intend to order so that the Army can fulfil its new operational roles.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). He kindly gave way to me during his speech. It was remiss of me to intervene, given that, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, he had to make an important contribution to the debate in only 10 minutes.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) referred to certain military establishments in Colchester. I did my national service in the Royal Military Police and he brought back memories of that establishment and of another, based in Shepton Mallet. However, now is not the time to talk about such institutions.
As a young military policeman based in Germany, not far from the border, I found that even the most riotous Saturday night involving certain Scottish regiments did not face me with anything like the dangers that our young soldiers now face in Ulster and elsewhere. As a Member of Parliament representing the lower Clyde, I have almost a front-line seat on developments in Northern Ireland. Many Scottish soldiers serve with regiments that go across there for tours of duty.
In the days before I entered the House, I always thought that it was a mistake to send Scottish regiments to the Province, because of the intimate historical relationship between the Province and Scotland. The dangers faced by those magnificently brave young men were brought home to me plainly on 9 April this year, when four young men from the Ulster Defence Regiment were so savagely murdered. One was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Bradley of Port Glasgow—Lance-Corporal John Bradley—who, because of that vicious and dastardly attack, has left a young widow in Belfast with two young children, one of whom was only three months old when his father was so brutally murdered. That may explain why I asked about the counselling and welfare provisions offered by the armed forces to the widows of soldiers who have been murdered in such a brutal and cowardly way.
One Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss those welfare provisions for soldiers' families—the Armed Forces Bill. I believe such Bills are a quinquennial event in the house, which last passed an Armed Forces Bill in 1986. Will we be debating an Armed Forces Services Bill early next year? If so, as experienced hon. Members know, a Select Committee will be set up. I had the honour to be on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces in 1986, and I found it useful to cross-examine senior military personnel about the provision of welfare facilities for soldiers.
Let me draw the Minister's attention to the excellent report produced by the Select Committee on Defence: I am concerned about some constituency matters. I refer the Minister to paragraph 74, on page XXV of the report, which refers to
the completion of certain physical improvements
to the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton. Given that the Ministry of Defence police have been pulled out of Bishopton and that there is to be a civilian defence force, is the Minister satisfied with the recent developments at Royal Ordnance Bishopton? The chief constable of the Strathclyde police has said that he could provide a quick armed response if Bishopton was attacked in any way.
In paragraphs 74 and 75, the Select Committee said that it shared the anxiety of local people and others, including


the Defence Police Federation spokesman, about standards of security at RO Bishopton. In paragraph 75, the Select Committee report said:
there is still some anxiety, which we share, about an apparent lowering of the standards of security arrangements for guarding a site where ready-to-use explosives are stored,.
We are told by various pundits in the media that the IRA has a large store of Semtex. A goodly number of my constituents are employed at RO Bishopton.
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), I feel that it is right and proper for me to demand an assurance from the Minister that the changeover at the Royal Ordnance factory from a Ministry of Defence police to a civilian guard will not in any way infringe the security of our constituents who work there, or the security of the communities in and around that plant. Paragraph 75 recommends that the number and quality of the forces deployed at Bishopton must be closely monitored. Which institutions will monitor the guarding of that plant?

Mr. Mates: The Ministry of Defence.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question, but for the public record I should still like an answer from the Minister. Will it be the Ministry of Defence, will it be the Strathclyde police or will they work in tandem? What form will the monitoring take? Of course, there may be security reasons that prevent the Minister from providing answers. However, on behalf of my constituents employed at Bishopton and the communities in Renfrewshire, I seek an assurance that the Minister is confident that there will not be a lowering of the quality of the guard provided at that plant. Those are important considerations for the people of Renfrewshire, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Derek Conway: I shall curtail my speech in the hope that other hon. Members may have an opportunity to contribute, even at this late hour.
I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I very much endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) about the effect of the community charge on the regular forces. There are some anomalies that could be easily addressed without great cost to the public.
My hon. Friend the Minister listed some of the victims of the IRA this year, not only civilians, but members of the armed forces. They were mostly soft targets, which we know is the cowardly way in which the IRA operates. Perhaps we expect little else of it. However, I hope that, especially on the mainland, we expect slightly more of some of our television producers. Should anyone be listening, I say to Yorkshire Television that its recent actions have given a great deal of encouragement to the forces of terrorism. Would that those television producers, either BBC or ITV, gave as much attention to the impact of terrorism on those widowed and left fatherless as they do to the terrorists. That would be a different story.
The review is taking place against the background of great changes, and that has been commented on by hon. Members from both sides of the House. It was a little churlish of the Opposition, especially the hon. Members

for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), to be so sarcastic about the role of the Government's policies in the events that have so radically changed the map of Europe.
I believe that, once the bosses of the Kremlin realised that NATO forces, especially in the United Kingdom, would not roll over quietly, that brought about the great changes that Mr. Gorbachev managed to instigate. I have not the slightest doubt that military history will show that the decision to deploy cruise—with considerable objection from the Opposition—against the deployment of SS20s by the Soviet Union was fundamental in bringing about that realisation.
I am not sure about the purpose of these debates, other than perhaps to fire the odd warning shot across the bows of departmental Ministers. In that sense, there have been many warnings during the debate that any decision to cut dramatically what press reports suggest may be as much as 40 per cent. of our infantry battalions will not go without challenge in the Conservative party. I am sure that my colleagues will not present us with any ultimatum or fast plan and that there will be considerable consultation about any movement.
We must realise the need for an army in Britain, and the debate must be about its size and the location of its units. Military presence and, indeed, military experience is good for the nation. Units with widespread community and civic life play a good part on behalf of the Regular Army. My criticism of past policies has been the determination to centralise so much of military training and take the armed forces away from the community.
I regularly plug the Territorial Army hobby horse, and it has been encouraging in this debate to see how many colleagues have mentioned the need for increased Territorial Army activity. Taking up 3·5 per cent. of the Army's budget as it does, it clearly does not require a huge expenditure, but the Government receive a great deal in return and so does the Territorial Army. Not only do those taking part have the opportunity for personal development and to acquire team skills; they also have the challenge of physical activity and a variety of training, particularly the use of helicopters and other things which, in civilian life, would not be open to them. What saddens me is that adventure training is still not classified and officially sanctioned, so it is difficult to organise. Future training for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army may have to concentrate on personal skills and challenges.
I hope to see a great expansion of the Territorial Army. I still believe that the Swiss conscription period of 14 days per annum is an ideal way of giving the general young population an experience of military life. The hon. Member for Rhondda rather mocked the idea of people having experience of military service, but young people aged between 16 and 24 in Britain are not yet ready for middle age, mortgage and children, and God help the nation if they are. An experience of military life would do them the world of good and would be greatly welcomed.
The Army epitomises loyalty, comradeship and effectiveness, and I hope that our Government will not throw that away.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On the Saturday evening of the last bank holiday weekend, there was an intrusion by the Army into my constituency which was


unwelcome, unexpected and frightening. The Rogerstone power station, which has closed down, was attacked in what is believed to have been an Army exercise. There was no warning to the police, who were confused by what was going on, and there was no warning to the Member of Parliament. It was frightening because helicopters were used, with searchlights coming down from the sky illuminating a wide area. Thunderflashes were used and there was the sound of machine-gun fire. At least one claim is coming in for a car which was damaged by a thunderflash that went astray.
As there was no warning in the area, when complaints were made and inquiries were made of me and the police, nobody could provide an answer. However, there appears to have been some information at police headquarters which was not available in Newport. As one would expect, rumours spread that there was an IRA attack and, most persistently and widespread, that there was a gunman on the loose, as has happened, sadly, in many other places. The people of Newport are sensible and they realise that the special services have to exercise and in circumstances that are as realistic as possible, but the question remains whether that was wise.
May we have some assurance from the Minister that, since every exercise is artificial to some degree, it would not noticeably affect the value of the exercise if full warnings were given to the local population? Will he also tell us that never again will there be the combination of hazards that took place at Rogerstone that night, where helicopters were left hovering for prolonged periods between two hills at night at low altitude?
I have been in contact with the Minister's office and there is an apologetic tone coming from there. I understand that the Minister has been abroad and has not managed to respond fully so far. But the people of Newport are considerably angered that the exercise took place under such deplorable circumstances and we look for assurances that there will be no repetition in Gwent or elsewhere.

Sir Alan Glyn: I am sorry to hear of the events described by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I am sure that adequate warnings will be given in future.
I endorse fully my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's views expressed on page 5 and all that goes with that. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State who endorsed my right hon. Friend's policy. We sat back as NATO and the Warsaw pact faced one another, and thought that everything was all right—but suddenly things changed. The Warsaw pact is disintegrating, and we are left with NATO. It is important that we should build and strengthen it, because we never know what will happen, and adjust our forces with that in mind. However, we cannot do so immediately, because we do not know how far Gorbachev's changes will go. Nor do we know what precisely will be the outcome of his recent talks in America.
We are left with a situation that is so fluid that it is almost more dangerous than when NATO and the Warsaw pact were facing one another. Anything might happen at any time. I am sure that all right hon. and hon.
Members recognise that the situation today is not more secure but more uncertain—but given strength of will, we shall succeed.
The Bush negotiations were welcome, but difficult, because they changed the composition of nuclear forces. Again, we shall have to plan for the consequences. We need a highly mobile force, making use—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said—of helicopters, and to adopt a completely new attitude to our forces in Europe. I was particularly glad that the Minister of State paid tribute to the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as they render marvellous service in the most difficult circumstances.
One of the most important issues we must confront is that of the Territorial Army, which may not have the strength currently that was once anticipated. It is important to recruit more men and women into the TA, which takes on even greater importance if there are to be cuts elsewhere. In an emergency, members of the Territorial Army and reserves can always be called up.
It is important that TA members should be accorded proper treatment, be respected by members of the Regular Army and become almost a part of it. Employers should, where possible, be compelled to allow their staff to take leave for the purpose of giving TA service. I understand that 820 employers currently co-operate, but they are mainly large firms. More should be trained, to serve side by side with the Regular Army. They should also be given proper equipment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said, an incentive should be provided to join the TA. If there is a problem of recruitment, I am sure that it can be overcome.
We must bear in mind always the fact that the scene can still alter. Gorbachev could fall and there could be changes in the Soviet Government. Our nuclear deterrent remains absolutely essential and must be retained not only to ensure peace in Europe but to serve as a deterrent against countries that are themselves developing nuclear weapons. We must retain our nuclear deterrent, whether we like it or not.
Whatever happens, it is the duty of this Government, and of any future Government, to ensure that the defence of this country is adequate and sufficient.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the Front-Bench spokesmen for reducing their time and I shall allow a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
The changes that have taken place in eastern Europe have been referred to again and again. I remind the House of the old adage that military planners must base their calculations not on intentions but on capabilities. The dissolution of the Soviet Union's allies in the Warsaw pact, while considerably affecting ground forces in Europe and changing warning times from days to weeks, has had no significant effect on nuclear forces and precious little on naval and air forces. A tremendous imbalance still exists between the Soviet Union as a single power and the combined forces of NATO.
For that reason, even if President Gorbachev's position were unassailable, if there were no political unrest in the Soviet Union, and if we were convinced that perestroika is absolutely set fair, we should still be cautious. I know that


there are enthusiasts for defence roles for the European Community and the Western European Union in the House, as we hear them mentioned from time to time, but it is important that we remember that the only structure which offers the co-ordinated political framework, intelligence framework and command structure necessary for deterrence is still NATO.
I find it worrying that last weekend President Gorbachev was unable to endorse President Bush's simple statement that membership of NATO by a combined Germany should be a matter for the Germans. It is worrying that President Gorbachev should find it necessary to say that if Germany chose to stay in NATO it could have a profound effect on the progress of conventional arms reduction talks and, by implication, on the Soviet Union's willingness to withdraw from East Germany. I do not speak critically of President Gorbachev; it is a sad reflection on the continuing reality of power in the Soviet Union that it is not possible for the present leader to dismantle the Soviet military structure and posture as quickly as he might like.
Other hon. Members have referred to potential problems in the third world and I shall not reiterate what they said, except the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—that if we should ever become involved in one of the many trouble spots in the third world, where vital western interests as well as world peace could be threatened, we have to remember that those countries, to a large extent, have both heavy and sophisticated weapons. The idea that a handful of small lightly-armed forces can whiz off and sort them out simply belongs to 30 years ago.
Our Regular Army has a profoundly different structure from armies in the rest of the major countries in European NATO because it is an all-volunteer Army. Even Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have conceded that that makes it difficult to compare our spending patterns to those in the other NATO countries, where there is an enormous contribution in kind by using conscript soldiers, whereas we have to offer competitive rates of pay. For that reason we already have by far the smallest Army of any major European NATO country.
I read in this morning's Daily Telegraph that we may be contemplating substantially reducing numbers of troops—by as much as 40 per cent. Quite apart from the overall wisdom of that, and I would certainly be cautious about making cuts of that size, even if there were a successful outcome to the Vienna talks—which seems to be in question at the moment—we must recognise that it would still be an expensive Army, because we have chosen to go down the volunteer and professional route. That has paid off in a number of ways, not least of which is the conduct of our soldiers in Ulster, which is something that none of our European allies could have matched.
We have gone down an expensive route, and it is no good trying to persuade ourselves that we can get our armed forces on the cheap while our regular forces are all professional. My second point about the Regular Army is that the concomitant of that and the reason why it is expensive is that, if one wants to continue to retain and attract young men and women of calibre into those professional forces, one has to be willing to offer them a standard of living comparable to that in civilian life. We

have done well on the salary side and I am not critical of the level of salaries in the armed forces. However, I must be critical of some of the fringe areas, which are important and I will concentrate on three in particular.
I have frequently mentioned house purchase. I will quote one paragraph from the continuous attitude survey of high fliers at the junior division of the staff college. The paragraph says:
The area causing by far the greatest degree of dissatisfaction, however, was assistance with house purchase, where some 84·9 per cent. of respondents expressed some dissatisfaction, with 58·8 per cent. reporting they were 'very' dissatisfied.
Secondly, I do not have time to go into the complexity of the question of wives' careers. We have improved the number of wives with jobs in the Army, but they are overwhelmingly low-grade jobs. I suggest to Ministers that there is a cheap solution to that—by setting up integrated business centres with decent telecommunications facilities in our major bases in which wives with professions could rent spaces. There is already an organisation in my constituency which very effectively runs a complete City money-broking operation from a village 70 miles from the City.
Thirdly, education is also a complicated subject in an organisation in which families are moving all the time. It is unfair that tax is charged on boarding school allowances for those who send their children to boarding school to give them a continuous education. The standards in service schools are also starting to slip badly behind their civilian counterparts.
We must be careful about NMS—the new management strategy. It is yielding dividends in the civilian area and in some of the support areas, but in applying it to operational units, we must never forget that the task of a fighting unit is to prepare for war. That can never be fully encapsulated in the objectives that one produces in management strategies in civilian life. It is important that we do not become so carried away in trying to achieve accountability down the line that we convert leadership into bureaucracy.
I am proud to be a serving officer in the Home Service Force unit of the Territorial Army, which is affiliated to 10 Para. However, we must be cautious in what we can expect from the Territorial Army. There are many excellent units in the Territorial Army and I like to think that I belong to one of them. However, the bulk of the Territorial Army suffers from the same problem that Churchill's diaries identified in 1940. It is seriously short of adequate grade officers and non-commissioned officers.
That problem brings about the secondary problem—that there is too much turnover in the lower ranks because they become bored where there is a lack of leadership. The problem is best tackled through the effective employers' initiative which the Government have started. My own unit, 10 Para, sponsored Exercise Executive Stretch two weeks ago. We will reverse the trend by convincing employers that the Territorial Army is a worthwhile enterprise and not by pouring money into pay and allowances.
We must be realistic about the Territorial Army. It is a splendid organisation with an important role to play. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on a better role for airborne forces in the Territorial Army, because airborne units tend to be well recruited. However, we must remember that there is a limit to how much we can use the territorial


forces. The Israelis discovered to their cost that one cannot keep mobilising civilian reserve forces in the face of an enemy mobilisation. Eventually, pressure from employers will force a Territorial Army to demobilise. I stress again that this is not the time to be lowering our guard.

Mr. John McFall: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for a two-minute peroration. I shall concentrate solely on the report on the physical security of military installations by the Select Committee on Defence. We undertook the report as a result of events at Mill Hill and Deal. We said in the report that, with the passage of time, the threat has not been reduced. That is even more relevant today than when we commenced our report.
The Minister mentioned Deal in his opening remarks and made one or two comments that are not on public record at present. My information is that the report on Deal went to the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 December 1989. That report has been lying on the desk of the Secretary of State for Defence for more than six months. When are we going to get the report and when can we discuss it? The report must be produced quickly. I should like the Minister to refer to that matter.
The Select Committee examined many aspects of security. We concluded that the buck stops at the Ministry of Defence and on the Secretary of State's desk. During a public examination, a question about policy was put to a senior Ministry of Defence official. We were informed that it was ministerial policy to introduce privatisation and contracting. When he was pressed on that point, the senior civil servant said that Ministers who are told by officials that their policies are not working very well are inclined to doubt the enthusiasm of the officials for the policy. In other words, the messenger is shot.
Our enthusiasm is doubted because the policy is not working and because it is based on cost cutting. A policy that is based on saving money endangers lives. With private security firms, the usual vetting procedures and scrutiny are not available. Ministers must answer that. The buck stops with Ministers. Let the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement answer why, in the face of advice, he is going ahead with cost cutting and providing a lower level of security than before. Cost cutting endangers lives. That is the most poignant message in the report by the Select Committee on Defence.

Mr. Roland Boyes: This debate is extremely important, for it may be the only chance to have a public airing of major questions about the future of the Army before the Secretary of State puts his signature at the bottom of the secret review of defence policy that has been going on in Whitehall for some months now.
Last week, in an extraordinary interview on the BBC "Today" programme with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, we heard how the options being considered in the defence review were "very, very secret" so there could be no public debate until Defence Ministers had decided what the options were. That is a contemptuous attitude. The changes that are under way in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have overwhelming implications for British foreign and defence policy.
Ultimately, they may call into question the purpose and utility of military force itself, at least in Europe, and they certainly presage some major changes in the relationship between the state, the armed forces and civil society.
In the circumstances, the British public deserve a great deal more than the usual treatment that they get from the Government—a few leaked documents from Ministers or civil servants who know that they will not get their own way in the end because they must ultimately face the steamroller from No. 10, followed by a fait accompli decision about any opportunity for real debate.
I can hear Ministers say that this is a free country and that people can and do say what they like about the future of Britain's defence policy in the newspapers, on television and so on. But any such debate will take place in a complete vacuum if we are not even permitted to know what the agenda is inside Government. If the Government insist on maintaining their ridiculous secrecy, they are effectively saying to the public that defence is not a matter for them.
That may be all very well in a climate in which public support for defence spending can be relied on, but with more and more people questioning the need for large military forces and expensive equipment, a policy of closing off debate will simply reinforce the public belief that the military is an anachronism and that secrecy is merely a ploy to protect overblown budgets and pet projects from cuts. The result will be a further decline in the military's legitimacy in the eyes of taxpayers. The public will simply see no need for military spending and will not vote for it.
Opposition Members have always expressed the view that defence reviews should be open and honest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who conducted such an open defence review in the 1960s, knows only too well that the price of openness can be stinging public criticism from those who have interests to defend, but that is the nature of debate and the Government should not be afraid to face it.
I wish to ask the Minister a few questions, which I realise that he might not answer this evening, so I am prepared to accept his replies in writing. How much is the review costing? Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office been involved? Have the three service chiefs been involved? Have NATO partners been consulted? What considerations have been given to the industrial and economic consequences of the review, especially in terms of jobs? What are the spending priorities for any cash that is saved, as suggested by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement?
In any review of defence policy, the growing build-up of non-nuclear, but highly provocative and deadly, weapons systems in the third world must be considered. The proliferation of advanced weapons systems is of great concern. They include ballistic and chemical weapons, and the use of cluster bombs, launched from a 20-mile-range missile, causing damage over a 40-acre area. The advanced countries either sell those weapons directly or sell the technology.
One cannot really talk about military policy in the third world without considering chemical weapons. While a generation of British soldiers have been trained on how to fight on a chemically contaminated battlefield in central Europe, the real threat from chemical weapons is in the third world. No one can deny that chemical weapons proliferation is a problem, having seen the awful scenes of


the Iran-Iraq war. It now seems that the brief phase of chemical rearmament of the mid-1980s may be over. Opposition Members wholeheartedly welcome the agreement that was reached last week between the Soviet Union and the United States of America, which will lead to the Americans joining the Soviets in stopping chemical weapons production, and to the cutting of the stockpiles to 20 per cent. of the current United States levels. However, we are disappointed that the Americans have thought it necessary to retain substantial, newly modernised chemical weapons, as that will be a major disincentive to other possessor countries to give up their stocks during the global chemical weapons convention.
There is great concern that some biological and chemical weapons are not quite right. We have reached a stage of genetic engineering of chemical weapons and can make tailormade bugs at the same time as providing vaccines for our own troops.
Britain could be in a strong positon to argue the case. If the Americans and now the Soviets want to keep chemical weapons on the ground that they are a deterrent against, say, the Libyas, the Irans and the Iraqs of the world, they are subscribing to the hoary old myth of like-for-like deterrence.
Back in 1983, when a debate was going on within the Ministry of Defence about whether Britain should consider restarting chemical weapons production, the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was quoted as saying that NATO doctrine rested on the belief that the west's conventional and nuclear weapons were a sufficient deterrent against chemical attack, and that NATO consequently did not need its own chemical stocks.
That argument now goes even further. Since Germany will never accept chemical weapons on its soil after the current United States stocks are removed, the new United States binary weapons can hardly be regarded as a credible deterrent against the Soviet Union. Since United States policy has specifically referred to other chemical weapons possessor countries, does that mean that the USA is prepared to use chemical weapons against countries such as Libya?
Are chemical weapons really a deterrent? The United States' possession of chemical weapons and the presence in the Gulf of aircraft carriers capable of launching airborne chemical attacks did not stop either Iran or Iraq from using poison gas on each other. The fact is that there are no conceivable circumstances in which the USA could or would drop chemical or biological gas on people in the third world without creating a storm of negative if not hostile reaction.
The truth is that super-power chemical stocks have no military utility. Any threat to use them is empty. Britain should therefore argue strongly for the USA and Soviet Union—and, indeed, France—to abandon all their stocks at the earliest possible date as part of a global ban, reached through the chemical disarmament talks.
I accept that there are severe problems in getting the mavericks—Hussein, Gaddafi and so on—to join a global ban. That will be one of the foremost tasks of those negotiating the chemical weapons convention. One thing is

certain. As long as the United States, the Soviets and the French keep their chemical weapons, there will be no incentive for anyone else to give them up.
Britain should go back to its long-held position, established when we abandoned our offensive capability in the 1950s. That is that one does not need chemical weapons to deter a chemical attack. The Government have stressed for some years that the Soviet Union has a massive chemical stockpile. On several occasions they stated publicly that they believed that the Soviet Union's stockpile was about six times greater than the 50,000 tonnes now claimed. Although this year's defence estimates are rather more coy about the figures, they restate that position and say that the Government believe that the Soviet stockpile
exceeds that claimed in their public statements.
Only the week before the 1990 defence estimates were published, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces said in another place:
our current estimate of the stock of chemical weapons in Russia is about 50,000 tonnes.
After all the accusations of lying and cheating, the Government now believe the Soviets' own figures. Moreover, the Minister went on to say:
we arc not aware of any recent significant changes in the Soviet Union's chemical warfare capability."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 1990; Vol. 517, c. 963–4.]
I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is indeed the Government's new position and will explain why his intelligence has suddenly cut the estimate to one sixth of the previous estimate.
I intended to speak about NATO and the Warsaw treaty. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), who is not in his place, said that the Warsaw treaty organisation barely exists. That provides an opportunity for a transition to forms of international politics in Europe that are not predicated on the ever-present threat of unleashing mass destruction. As long as we feel that we cannot trust each other, our attempts to solve serious political problems will always be based on threats of violence. If the institutions that we use to seek solutions are themselves founded on the concept of political coercion by threatening violence, we shall have narrowed the options from the start.
Perhaps NATO has a transitional role and will help to shape new ideas for the security of Europe. But as Sir Michael Howard said in a lecture at King's college in March:
There is a need for thinking as bold and innovative as that called for 40 years ago if NATO is not to be seen as a dinosaur, an obstacle to rather than an instrument for the remaking of Europe.
That bold new thinking must take account, initially at least, of the established co-operation of the CSCE process. That offers us a proven working forum that has some potential to move beyond bloc-to-bloc relations. It also has the advantage that it can deal effectively with military questions as well as economic, cultural and political issues.
There is now an opportunity for discussions about how the CSCE process could be used to develop a new European security order. It does not follow that that involves the immediate dismantling of NATO. As Manfred Wörner said on television today, NATO could be one of the props in the CSCE process. There are risks as well as opportunities in the CSCE process. However, the climate is being created in which those matters can be considered seriously. We are approaching a time when east


and west must mutually consider the role of the military in Europe beyond non-provocative defence. Out of CFE we must build up confidence on both sides through verification processes by an agreed inspectorate, which would lead to exchanges of information.
Whatever the reality or, indeed, the perception of the Soviet threat, we cannot escape the fact that the CFE treaty and political trends in Germany—whether it is unified or not—could mean a major cut in the British Army of the Rhine. Of course, that will be a major topic of discussion in the two-plus-four talks.
In common with Conservative Members, we pay tribute to the skill, professionalism and dedication of our armed personnel in all ranks, many of whom are often at risk. Unfortunately at this time those at risk regrettably include their wives and children. Not only the politicians, but the Army must recognise the significance of the change in the nature of the threat. Inevitably that will lead to a slimmed-down Army. The Army must still be provided, however, with the most up-to-date equipment and the trained personnel to carry out efficiently and effectively whatever task it is asked to undertake by the nation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave a positive message. The dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe have profound and complex implications for European security. Their full import is not yet clear, nor will it be for some time ahead. What is clear is that there is much to be resolved and negotiated. Our primary aim is, as it always has been, to maintain our security. We hope that the changes in Europe mean that we can achieve this aim at lower force levels and at reduced cost.
This changing scene naturally raises much speculation and uncertainty about the future role and structure of the three services. That uncertainty is, of course, felt within the services and, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) observed, especially by the Army. The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently examining the options for the United Kingdom's defence policy for the 1990s and the next century, and the structures that would be needed to support them. Hon. Members would not expect me to comment on those considerations tonight. It follows from that that it would be premature for me to speculate on how the Army itself may change, but, whatever happens, we will still need the Army's traditional strengths of versatility and flexibility.
The House will be grateful to all those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. So numerous were they that the majority of speeches had to be time-limited, including the concluding speeches from the Front Benches. I shall endeavour, of course, to attempt to address some of the many points that have been raised today and to ensure that others are answered in writing. I also hope to say something myself if time allows.
As usual, the debate has benefited from Members' experience and expertise. It was welcome to hear the comments of the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell) about their

experience of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That is one contribution to a greater understanding of the part the services play in the defence of our nation.
The first issue that I want to address was raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who opened the debate for the Opposition. To be the Opposition spokesman on defence deserves some small compensations or it would be a thankless task in the extreme. He mentioned what the Defence Committee report said about commercial security guards. At Deal, Reliance did not employ any personnel with criminal records. All commercial guards are vetted by the Ministry of Defence. The competence of Reliance was not in question and it was supported by armed Royal Marines guards.
The individual with the alleged 500 criminal convictions was taken on by Reliance, but was not employed by it as he quit when he realised that his record was under investigation by the company. He was never part of the Deal complement. Commercial guards are not used solely to guard military installations where service men work and sleep—they are used to augment the Ministry of Defence police and service guards who may be armed.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Neubert: Before the hon. Gentleman rises to intervene on this subject again, I counsel him to observe the advice of the Select Committee on Defence—that one should not prejudge the lessons to be learnt from the incident at Deal without knowing the full facts.

Mr. Rogers: I do not want to prejudge anything in relation to Deal, but it is important to be clear about who was employed by Reliance Security Services. As I understand from the evidence given to the Select Committee, the man with 500 convictions was recommended to the job by a man with whom he served in prison, who was working with Reliance and told him that he should join the company. The Minister should check that, as his information may be wrong. The man may not have been employed at Deal, but he was certainly employed as a commercial security guard by the MOD.

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Member is incorrigible and I shall not attempt to instruct him further on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of service accommodation. Again, the figure that he quoted is not recognised by my officials and we shall have to look into the matter further to identify which figure he wants updated. I assure him that there is a substantial programme of works to upgrade married quarters and single accommodation in our older property, and new building produces some very desirable residences indeed.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from a book, apparently published last September, which was critical of today's Army. He was careful not to endorse the criticisms, but he gave them wide publicity by including them in his speech. Included among the phrases he quoted was the term "ruthless careerism." I cannot see how that could be applied so much to the Army as to the occupants of the Labour Front Bench, who are prepared to deny their deepest, innermost socialist convictions in public in a futile attempt to persuade the British public to vote Labour at the next general election. They will fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the incorrigible hon. Member for Rhondda and others mentioned the Defence Committee's sixth report.


As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we welcome the report and will be responding in the usual way. I will not prejudge that response now, but, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East about Ministry of Defence police at Royal Ordnance factories, I can say that we are having discussions with British Aerospace and other interested parties, and we hope to reach a satisfactory outcome.
On the point about Bishopton raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I can report that the Ministry of Defence police force at the site will be withdrawn during this month. It is being replaced by Royal Ordnance plc guard force personnel, who are being trained by personnel from Strathclyde police force. The chief constable of Strathclyde is satisfied with those arrangements, entered into in consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the company. His police force will supply the armed response if required.
Crucial to the effectiveness and efficiency of the services are their men and women, both in terms of their quality and quantity—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Neubert: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have little time left.
It is on personal issues in the main that I intend to focus in my speech. The interests of service personnel are close to the hearts of many hon. Members.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Hon. Member: Sit down.

Mr. Neubert: I really must get on.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister is supposed to be answering the debate.

Mr. Neubert: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will answer the debate. Only a few minutes remain. I have much to say, without the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raising further questions. He spent the whole of his 10 minutes asking a series of questions, and he should be satisfied with that.
We seek to offer an attractive opportunity for a worthwhile career for both officers and soldiers—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Neubert: We seek to offer an attractive opportunity for a worthwhile career for officers and soldiers which provides plenty of challenge and job satisfaction and is well supported and properly rewarded in financial terms. Only in that way will we persuade the right calibre of people to commit themselves to a career in the Army.
As the House is aware, we have for some time been increasingly concerned by an inability to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of young people in the services, especially in the Army, which is by far the most manpower-intensive. The key points that influence us are, first, that manpower is our most precious asset—slightly more than half the Army's total budget is spent on pay and manpower-related matters—and secondly, that our serving men and women are expensively trained and

skilled in a world in which skill shortages are increasing. They are also well disciplined and well motivated. They are, in consequence, highly attractive to outside employers.
Future requirements will be influenced by decisions about the shape and size of the Army. In that Army, air mobility may well have an important part to play. I cannot respond to the points made by my hon. Friends, but I can confirm that the House of Commons air mobile brigade is well staffed by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), and there may be others. But whatever the eventual outcome, it is clear that recruiting will become that much more difficult with the onset of the demographic trough.
As the House is well aware, the fall in the number of young people has already begun and will continue for some years. The resulting competition from other employers for that falling number of potential employees is making it ever more difficult to recruit and retain all the men and women for the Army that we would like. The Army succeeded in recruiting just over 22,000 officers and soldiers last year—a record achievement, reflecting the sterling effort put into the work. Nevertheless, it was about 5,000 under the trained strength requirement at 31 March this year.
In contrast with that success on the recruitment front, outflow remains far higher than we would like and led to an increase in the Army's undermanning. About 25,000 people left the Army last year. We propose to introduce a wide-ranging strategy to improve manning. Retaining expensively trained manpower is essential, and the principle of maintaining comparability of pay plays a vital part in this. Once again, the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, giving the armed forces an average increase in pay of 9·4 per cent. with three quarters of the award coming from 1 April last and the remainder from 1 January next year. We have also accepted the review body's recommendation that the service X factor should rise by 0·5 per cent. to compensate for the special difficulties of life in the services. The full increase in the pay bill this year is 10·9 per cent.
We are directing our spending particularly towards improving the retention of trained Army personnel. With effect from January next year, committal bonuses are being introduced for both officers and soldiers. Officers will be paid a bonus of £6,500 on promotion to captain and a further bonus of £6,500 on promotion to major. Payment will be made on completing six years service for captains and nine years for majors. In return, those accepting bonuses will be expected to complete at least three further years service. For soldiers, those completing five or eight years service on or after January 1991 will be paid a bonus of £2,000 subject to a commitment to serve for at least a further 12 months. New entrants will join after 1 January next year on new terms of engagement, and will be eligible for bonuses after five and eight years service.
I was sorry to miss the speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) and to hear about his experience at the military correction training centre. I shall read it with pleasure in Hansard tomorrow.
I should like to respond to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) by confirming that we have proposals for the formation of an Adjutant-General's Corps. Further work is under way to give effect to the decision already announced and to establish which existing corps functions should be included in the new corps. We are considering the Royal Army Chaplain's department, the corps of the Royal Military Police, the Royal Army Pay Corps, the Military Provost Staff Corps, the Royal Army Education Corps and the Army Legal Corps. In addition, the staff clerk functions currently carried out by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Women's Royal Army Corps will be considered for inclusion in the new corps. About 6,500 uniformed personnel are involved. It is obviously too early for me to be able to report to the House on the precise size and composition of the new corps, but I hope that the necessary work can be completed and decisions taken by the end of the year.
Several of my hon. Friends warmly commended the Territorial Army. I confirm that the contribution made by the Territorial Army to our defence capability is substantial. Over 76,000 TA volunteers, including members of the Home Service Force, form an integral part of our mobilised order of battle. Beyond that, about 180,000 ex-Regular reservists form a vital pool from which TA and Regular Army units can be reinforced, and are a valuable source of military expertise.
I was interested in the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), which was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham about mixed units of Regulars and reservists. That will be considered. As I have said, Regular Army units can be reinforced. Like the rest of the armed forces, the TA has suffered from manning problems, especially retention, but we have seen a most positive response to our volunteer reserve forces campaign. That was aimed at securing a wider public understanding of the volunteer reserves, with over 800 major firms pledging support. Employers understand the benefits that their own organisations can reap from supporting their employees joining the TA, a point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
Membership of the TA not only trains a man or woman to be a good soldier but develops qualities such as leadership, responsibility, discipline and self-confidence, which are just as valuable in the commercial world. For the future, I am confident that the TA is in good shape and well poised to meet the changes likely to take place in the years ahead. There is no question but that it will continue to play a vital role in the future and will prove able to meet the challenging operational and technical requirements of the years to come.
The changing international climate presents great challenges and holds out prospects of great promise. Some uncertainty is inescapable, but in the meantime, the Army's contribution to maintaining stability and security for the nation is vital. We can be confident that the Army will be equal to the task.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Miss Carol Dempster

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

10 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I rise to put a constituency case, that of Miss Carol Dempster, aged 25, who was involved in a traffic accident in October 1988. This accident was first with a black Sierra travelling in the opposite direction from her and then with a police car. Despite the circumstances of the accident and the seriousness with which I and people in the Home Office view this, the Metropolitan police refuse to pay her compensation.
Carol Dempster was travelling along Barnet lane near my constituency in the direction of the A I on a Friday evening at approximately 9.30 at night. A black Ford Sierra came round the bend travelling at high speed. She said that she knew that he would hit her so she pulled the car into the left hand side of the road, turning the bonnet into the kerb. The black Sierra hit her car on the side of the front wing and the door and then carried on up the road. By this time, as far as she knew, Miss Dempster was stationary or moving only slowly.
Just after that, a police Rover came round the bend travelling at high speed. There is some question whether it was doing 70 or 90 mph, but both are high speeds. The car then hit the rear wing and wheels of her car, doing extensive damage. Miss Dempster's car may have been slightly over the white line or just touching it, but it could not have been far over, as the boot of a Triumph Spitfire is quite small.
The response of the police after this accident comes into several categories. First, when Miss Dempster was wandering around dazed and injured—luckily, only slightly—she received no help from police who were around at the time. To be fair, the police have since apologised for that. When Miss Dempster sought compensation from the police, she met with a shocking response. In a letter from the claims officer of the Metropolitan police claims branch to her solicitor on 22
February 1989, Mr. J. M. Comer said:
Your client took evasive action but, unfortunately, ran into the oncoming police vehicle causing injury to the occupants of both vehicles.
That statement cannot possibly be true and should never have been made by an official of the Metropolitan police.
After the representations that I made to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to the receiver and to the Home Office, the Home Office wrote to the receiver suggesting that compensation be paid to Miss Dempster. The letter said:
The Lord Ferris would be grateful, however, if you could review the decision in this case in the light of the points which were made by Mr. Hughes and if you would consider the possibility of making some payment to Miss Dempster in order to compensate her for the loss which she sustained through no fault of her own.
That has been met with a blanket "no" from the receiver of the Metropolitan police.
Why do I raise this case, as distinct from the three years of cases that I—like other hon. Members—have encountered in my constituency advice bureaux? It is not just because of the seriousness of the loss that Carol


Dempster has suffered, but because I believe that it is an indicator of a wider problem. High-speed police chases are controversial, both nationally and locally in Harrow.
I attended a meeting of the police consultative committee in Harrow, where the topic was discussed over a long period. Many people took the view that the police should not be allowed to travel at high speed to chase criminals. I did not share that view; I took the view then—as I do now—that if the police, for operational reasons known only to themselves, believe that they should chase someone at high speed—although we know the practice to be dangerous—they should retain the right to do so. What is more, they should have the support of hon. Members in carrying out that difficult work.
The police need our support, but until the case was brought to my attention I believed—as, I think, would other hon. Members—that in the event of an accident in which property was damaged or an individual was unfortunately hurt, the police would take a generous attitude in compensating the person, recognising that they needed to carry out their work. My concern is not just for the unfortunate plight of my constituent, Carol Dempster, but for the wider issue of support for the Metropolitan police.
The attitude taken by the receiver of the Metropolitan police does no favours to the policeman on the beat, or to policemen who have been—or will be—engaged in high-speed pursuit. People will think twice before backing the police in such circumstances, or in other circumstances involving difficult or dangerous police work, if they suspect an ungenerous attitude will be taken by the Metropolitan police in the event of an accident.
There should be a review of the general Metropolitan police policy that
Where (as here) a car is being pursued by police in the execution of their duty and an accident occurs the clear principle which applies is that unless there is evidence that police action could not be justified in the public interest or did not conform to a reasonable standard of care, then no legal liability falls upon the police to pay compensation.
That is not good enough, either for the policemen carrying out the work or for the public who would want to suppport them.
I am asking for two things. First, I am firmly of the opinion that the police should make at least an ex gratia payment to Carol Dempster for her loss: to a 25-year-old, £1,000 is a great deal of money. Secondly, there should be a new look at policy. Why should the police take such an ungenerous attitude? I have been informed that the position would be different had the incident occurred outside London; the Metropolitan police are operating differently from other police forces. I should like them to examine the matter. I also ask my hon. Friend the Minister to see whether moves can be made by the Home Office to see whether that policy can be changed.
My constituent is £1,000 worse off. She had no comprehensive insurance; which of us had at that age? For her sake, and for the sake of others in London, there should be a review. I urge the Minister to examine the facts that I have laid before the House, and to see whether anything can be done to ensure that when such an unfortunate accident happens again—as, inevitably, it will

—the public will know that they will be compensated by the Metropolitan police, to keep their good name and the support of the public.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on taking the trouble to secure this debate and he explained forcefully why he did. He drew attention to the widespread concern about the danger to innocent members of the public who are caught up in police pursuits and suggested that there may be a need to provide some public indemnity against loss through personal injury or damage to property if good public-police relations are to be maintained.
My hon. Friend's constituent, Miss Carol Dempster—with whom we all have great sympathy—was, as he has clearly shown, just such an innocent member of the public who had the misfortune to be caught up in a police car chase. As a result, her car was badly damaged. She looks, not unnaturally, to the police for compensation, but finds, alas—as my hon. Friend correctly recounted—that they disclaim legal liability. My hon. Friend has expressed his view that the police have a moral responsibility to recompense an innocent member of the public in such circumstances.
It might be helpful if I, too, set out the facts of the case and identify the areas of dispute before discussing the way in which the case has been handled. On the evening of Wednesday 26 October 1988, a police officer stationed at Borehamwood police station saw a Ford Sierra motor car in St. Albans being driven by a man whom he knew to be disqualified from holding a licence. The police officer obtained a warrant for the man's arrest. Two days later, on 28 October, the driver of the Sierra, who has a record of theft from motor vehicles, went drinking at a number of public houses in Borehamwood, and broke into and stole property from two motor cars.
At about 9.35 pm the car was spotted in a hotel car park by the same officer who had seen him on the Wednesday evening. The man failed to stop when required to do so and drove off at speed, followed by the police vehicle. The Sierra was driven at speeds in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, with apparent reckless disregard for the safety of others. It swerved from side to side and hit one vehicle in the course of the pursuit. In Deacons Hill road, Borehamwood, the driver lost control of his vehicle, crossing into the path of Miss Dempster's car before crashing into a telegraph pole. Miss Dempster took avoiding action, but her car was hit by the Sierra. That, I understand, spun her car round before it was hit by the police pursuit car.
The driver of the Sierra was arrested and subsequently convicted of driving while disqualified, theft, possession of an offensive weapon, driving while unfit through drink, failing to provide a specimen and using a motor vehicle while uninsured.
Miss Dempster claims that, after she took action to avoid the Sierra, her car remained on the correct side of the road where it was hit by the police car, which had crossed into her carriageway. The police officer on the other hand alleges that Miss Dempster swerved to his side of the road, where the collision took place. As my hon. Friend knows, it is not unusual following a car accident for the drivers to


dispute the exact sequence of events. That matter is usually left to be settled between insurance companies. If agreement cannot be reached, the matter can be resolved in the courts. Once liability is determined, any claims can be settled.
Unfortunately, Miss Dempster, as she was perfectly entitled, had chosen not to take out a comprehensive policy of insurance and was insured only against third party risk. As my hon. Friend remarked, premiums for young people can be high and some prefer to make a saving and accept the risk of carrying the cost of any repairs or replacement of their vehicles if they are damaged. She was also, of course, unable to obtain the support of an insurance company in arguing her case that the Metropolitan police have legal liability.
However, legal liability could be established only if it could be shown that the police action in pursuing the car either could not be justified in the public interest or did not conform to a reasonable standard of care. The Metropolitan police carry their own risks and the force's accident claims branch acts, in effect, as an internal insurance compay for the receiver for the Metropolitan police district. If the branch concludes, on a consideration of all the facts of a case, that no legal liability rests upon the force, compensation is not paid. When an accident involves a car being pursued by the police in the execution of their duty, the branch must be additionally satisfied that the police action can be justified in the public interest and that it conformed to a reasonable standard of care.
A police officer faces a genuine dilemma, as I think that my hon. Friend was suggesting, in maintaining a balance between the apprehension of an offender and the safety of the public. If a driver fails to stop, the officer does not know whether he is dealing with a trivial matter or a serious offence. He has to make a very quick decision.
Responsibility for the manner in which a pursuit is undertaken rests solely, as it must, with the driver of the police car. While he is legally exempt from the observance of the speed limits and certain traffic lights and signs, he is not exempt from other requirements of traffic law. Crossroads, side roads and pedestrians must be carefully watched. The police driver is liable for the quality of his driving in the same way as any other driver.
The driver of the Sierra was wanted on a warrant for driving while disqualified. He refused to stop when required, and his actions throughout confirmed that he had no intention of stopping when required to do so by the police. Furthermore, the police driver was an experienced driver who had qualified as an advanced driver, which enabled him to drive at high speed with as much safety as possible in the circumstances.
The accident claims branch has considerable experience of motor accident claims and dealt, in the 1988–89 financial year, with more than 1,500 claims and payments totalling nearly £1 million. Therefore, there are many occasions when the police do pay out when they consider that they have a liability. The claims branch is satisfied that the evidence in this case is consistent with the Sierra driver forcing Miss Dempster's car into the path of the police vehicle while the latter was being driven on the correct side of the road, and that no liability rests with the Metropolitan police.
The accident claims branch, following the intervention of my hon. Friend, agreed to refer the papers to an independent solicitor specialising in civil liability cases for advice on the strength of the case. The solicitor was satisfied that the action of the police driver was fully justified and that on the facts it may be assumed that Miss Dempster's car verged into the path of the police car. He advises that her loss arose only as a result of the Sierra driver's action.
My hon. Friend suggests that the attitude of the Metropolitan police is rigid, whatever the legal liability, and that there is a moral duty to compensate his constituent. I sympathise with his view, but the receiver for the Metropolitan police has a duty to make payments from the Metropolitan police fund only when he has clear authority, and he must account for all payments.
In so far as Miss Dempster did not have comprehensive cover for her car, the receiver is in the same position as any insurance company, or for that matter any private individual, who finds that a vehicle for which he has responsibility is involved with a vehicle driven by a person who has only third party insurance and is aggrieved that his claim for compensation is refused. It may seem hard, but the fact is that a person who decides to have only limited insurance cover does take the risks that that carries.
What I have said, I know, offers no comfort to Miss Dempster, but it remains open to her to pursue a civil claim against the driver of the Sierra or against the receiver. That is of course a matter on which she will wish to take legal advice. But the wider issue raised by my hon. Friend about whether compensation should be payable to the innocent victims of police car pursuits. there have been developments since his constituent's accident.
For accidents that have occurred since 1 January 1989, the Motor Insurers Bureau operates a scheme that enables the victim of an uninsured driver to claim compensation. The bureau will meet any award made by a court if it remains unpaid. That scheme will not meet all cases uncovered by motor accident insurance, but it will close the gap. I regret that it offers no comfort to Miss Dempster, who must feel that, whichever way she turns, there is a barrier to settlement of her claim.
My hon. Friend will, I fear, continue to regard the attitude of the Metropolitan police as mean and rigid, but we must be careful not to establish a requirement on the police to pay compensation where adequate insurance arrangements already exist or to depart from the practice of linking payments to some sort of legal liability. However, I listened, as my hon. Friend asked, to the points that he made very cogently. I shall reflect carefully on his arguments both general and particular, but I am afraid that I would be misleading my hon. Friend and his constituent if I were to leave him with the impression that the current rules provide real scope for a change of approach in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.